-16
$\begingroup$

The title refers, and this is the situation that I want to focus my question, when a poor question asked by a new user is put on hold after few minutes*.

  • To be concise about those cases in which I am interested are the worst questions of new users. I mean questions that being well intentionally the title is poor or wrong for this site, and/or the new contributor doesn't provide any effort and/or doesn't provide context about his/her question, and that seems clear that the question is homework, an assignment. The formulas weren't typed using MathJax. Maybe even is unclear what the new user is asking.

  • Thus it is required put on hold the question from this new contributor.

    That I am going to ask is, thus, in this scenario: that we assume that a new contributor asked a very bad question and we need to put on hold it.

Question. Can we agree on a minimum lapse of time to put a very poor question asked by a new contributor on hold? I'm interested to know if it is possible to set, in previous scenario, a minimum lapse of time to put on hold the poor question that we've evoked in previous paragraphs. Should it be at least ten minutes? Should it be half an hour? Many thanks.

Of course I don't know if this post can stimulate a policy about it, if it is possible to argue an agreement, or at least what is your opinion about the reasonable/acceptable minimum that I present in previous scenario (a bad question from a new contributor that it is required put on hold).


*I don't precise (I don't provide details about it) what I understand for a few minutes in those cases that I knew.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I've asked my question and received a downvote after the first, maybe, 30 seconds. That's not nice. $\endgroup$ – user243301 Sep 21 '18 at 20:03
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ I strongly oppose this suggestion and have voted as such. A bad question is a bad question regardless of the asker, and a question that deserves closure ought to be closed in a timely manner. Furthermore, new contributors have ample opportunity to acquaint themselves with site norms before they post, and are even required to check some boxes to that affect; if they haven't posted a reasonable-quality question, then that is on them. $\endgroup$ – T. Bongers Sep 21 '18 at 20:04
  • $\begingroup$ I'm sorry if you bothered my comment @T.Bongers Many thanks for your feedback in previous comment. $\endgroup$ – user243301 Sep 21 '18 at 20:05
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ So for the very short version of my previous comment: Vote on the question, not the asker. This is a Q&A site, not a social network. $\endgroup$ – T. Bongers Sep 21 '18 at 20:05
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Your post doesn't explain why you want a minimum time. Is it so that many people can post answers and get points before the question is closed? $\endgroup$ – Joel Reyes Noche Sep 22 '18 at 0:14
  • $\begingroup$ About your first claim, I think that even in the cases in that the post that I've evoked is the worst we must give an opportunity to dialogue through comments and presume that the new contributor will react to them. It is required thus patience. About your second claim, my perception/experience is that the users that answer questions of new users are motivated to help those, I think that this is the main purpose of these more experienced users, because they are sensitive to the shortcomings of new users. Many thanks @JoelReyesNoche $\endgroup$ – user243301 Sep 22 '18 at 7:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @user243301 Apparently you have been a very active user for a long time, Just a reminder: downvotes in meta works differently from the main site. Here a downvote means a user disagrees with your proposal (and NOT that your post is bad and should be closed or anything like that). $\endgroup$ – Lee David Chung Lin Nov 12 '18 at 8:42
7
$\begingroup$

In order to agree on a minimum lapse of time, we need a reason why there should be such a thing.

As far as I can tell, the obvious benefits of closing a question are maximized when done promptly; delaying closure reduces the benefit. So to agree on a minimum lapse of time, not only do we need to have some idea of what we would gain from it, we additionally need an argument why those gains outweigh the losses from delaying closure.

You merely propose a minimum lapse without a hint of suggestion of why: what you hope we might gain (and a reason why the suggestion might actually achieve those gains). Without that, I can't see how there can be agreement on it.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Many thanks for your feedback. I think that it is obvious why we need a minimum lapse of time in previous scenario in which the protagonists/main characters are the new contributors and the mentioned SE'policy about these. I am going to vote your answer but I am not agree about it. $\endgroup$ – user243301 Sep 22 '18 at 11:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The new users are protagonists...@user243301 I think you have a very skewed perception of the purpose of the site. Users are expected to inform themselves of the rules. $\endgroup$ – Don Thousand Oct 10 '18 at 1:41
  • $\begingroup$ Many thanks, today I've read your comment @RushabhMehta ,notice that it is required a blank space between the dots ... and the prefix @, otherwise the message does not reach the recipient. It is just my opinion that the protagonists/main characters on MSE are the new contributors. Of course professors, teachers, Phd students and other qualified professionals in mathematics are very important. $\endgroup$ – user243301 Oct 27 '18 at 15:15
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @user243301 I severely disagree with this. We all appreciate excited new learners who make an effort to learn. But there are so many new users who post duplicate, low effort, and "do my hw pls, I don't know what to do" questions. If anything, I think the professionals who deal with these questions are the superheroes. $\endgroup$ – Don Thousand Oct 27 '18 at 15:17

You must log in to answer this question.