I think many users of this site believe that the of PSQs, especially on uninteresting math content wise questions, is a problem.

I believe the current methods of dealing with the problem are, mostly, based on discouraging the answerers, please correct me if I am wrong, many of the PSQs obtain an answer, before closing/holding, with high probability.

Furthermore, I am not convinced whether the current methods discourage, sufficiently enough, the answerers.

IMO one of the main reasons that the question askers are not discouraged by the current practices is that their primary motive for asking them is obtaining an answer.

I was wondering if you think a prioritized review sequence would make sense. I haven't worked out the specifics fully, but roughly the criteria for this list could be: off topic questions before an answer has been submitted. This new category could appear in the review queues or somewhere else. Another idea, would be that a user can nominate the question to be included in the expedited category, as the nomination criteria should optimize the un-cluttering of the list and the nominated question being a worthy member of that list.

I am not sure in practice if a version of the previous idea could work, or exactly what would be the costs of such implementation.

  • $\begingroup$ "off topic questions before an answer has been submitted" . I don't understand what is being proposed. If it has already been closed as off-topic, no solutions can be added, which stops, for the most part, both the asker from getting an answer and eager solvers from posting an answer (although they could use the comments.) Why would queueing closed questions help deal with the problem? What happens to the questions queued thusly? If you didn't mean that the questions were closed as off-topic, how do you determine they're off-topic? $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Jul 5 '18 at 16:31
  • $\begingroup$ I believe the current methods of dealing with the problem are, mostly, based on discouraging the answerers, We can certainly impede answers using closure, but that seems to discourage the asker and answerers equally. Even then a determined answerer can post in the comments. From what I've seen, it's basically impossible to discourage determined answerers. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Jul 5 '18 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ No discouragement meant by the first comment, I just want to understand what the novel idea is here that supposedly would help to curb PSQs. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Jul 5 '18 at 16:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @rschwieb Oh I am sorry, what I wanted to say is that whenever the first off-topic vote is cast, not after the Questions has been placed on hold. $\endgroup$ – clark Jul 5 '18 at 16:43
  • $\begingroup$ @rschwieb About the second comment: About discouragement I was thinking along the lines that an answerer will not answer in the future a question. As a discouragement for answerer I was thinking of the possiblity that he will lose reputation gained and also lose his contribution. However, for the questioner should he have received an answer I was modelling the situation that they would receive no discourament. There are other factors at play, as you mentioned, for instance community dissaprovement, orthe lack or oppurtunity to receive a better question,but I am not surehow prevalent these are $\endgroup$ – clark Jul 5 '18 at 16:51
  • $\begingroup$ @rschwieb The answer in the comments, is a real issue. I can see a lot of discouragement asnwering in the comments for questions that require a longer answer. However, if the majority of the questions that get closed as off-topic can receive a one line answer, maybe my proposal in obselet, unless, it indeed would discourage a lot of people to answer the question in the comments, even for shorter answers. However, I am not sure about the previous statistic. $\endgroup$ – clark Jul 5 '18 at 16:53
  • $\begingroup$ I was trying to formulate a data explorer query to determine what proportion of questions closed as Off-Topic b/c lacks context, but I'm unfamiliar with how that closure type is associated with a post... $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Jul 5 '18 at 16:58
  • $\begingroup$ One of your comments brought another thing to light: posters who routinely get a lot of closure votes and downvotes will have their ability to answer questions throttled, but I'm not entirely sure if there's any equivalent for posters. Can anyone tell me offhand if answerers can be throttled under similiar circumstances? I don't think I've ever heard of it... $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Jul 5 '18 at 17:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @clark Re: "Oh I am sorry, what I wanted to say is that whenever the first off-topic vote is cast, not after the Questions has been placed on hold." You are essentially proposing that a single user be able to cast a binding close vote (if anyone votes to close a question as off-topic, it is then closed as off-topic). I hope that you can see that this is not a workable solution. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 5 '18 at 18:53
  • $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson Let me try to see if I have communicated correctly what I am thinking. When certain criteria are met the question will appear in the expendited review queue (a new queue extending the current ones), there users will vote to close according to their opinion. One of the criteria that a question will appear there is that it is new and it has not received an answer. As soon as an answer is submitted it should automatically move out of that queue. Another criteria, would be when it receives the first vote to close as off topic/lacking context. If that is what you had understood... $\endgroup$ – clark Jul 5 '18 at 20:38
  • $\begingroup$ ...then in what sense do you say it is binding? Because it is going to receive higher exposure?(all the criteria need to be met for a question to appear there) $\endgroup$ – clark Jul 5 '18 at 20:38
  • $\begingroup$ @clark What you seemed to have implied is that if someone votes to close a question as being "off-topic", that question would no longer be answerable until it passes a review queue. This is essentially the same thing that would happen if the question were put on hold, but instead of requiring 5 votes, it would require only one. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 5 '18 at 21:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ In any event, you might want to read this question on "triage", which seems to be kind of what you are looking for. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 5 '18 at 21:09
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @rschwieb AFAIK from SEDE you can only get that the question was closed as off-topic, but not which of the subreasons was chosen. There are a few posts on Meta Stack Exchange related to this, for example: Please add the individual close-as-off-topic reason in the Data Explorer $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jul 6 '18 at 5:24
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak No wonder I was having so much trouble! $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Jul 6 '18 at 10:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .