3
$\begingroup$

Before I ask question, I search it in history of the site. But sometimes I found a question which is an unreasonable rewriting of the content of the task, very often without own contribution.

Such posts do not receive a positive reception and do not get answers or get residual - possibly any tips that are not always obvious to me. In such situations, I would like to put in the same task again, with my own doubts and with my own contribution. Will it be a duplicate?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Related math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/29543/… $\endgroup$ – quid Jan 6 at 23:36
  • $\begingroup$ Also related: Editing someone else's question to add context. (However, this question is from July 2015, the majority viewpoint might have shifted a bit since then.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 8 at 6:21
  • $\begingroup$ It does not take too much effort to write a new post in a way that is not a duplicate, or in a way where the old question can be closed as a duplicate of the newer post. This is particularly true if the old question is badly composed and has no high quality answers. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Jan 10 at 14:28
1
$\begingroup$

This is similar to my query Re-asking another user's on-hold question which @quid's comment links to.

My conclusion, based on the responses there and my own thoughts on it, was: a badly asked good question is worth turning into a well asked good question. Often the actual query is an interesting one, and the original post is only a "bad question" fom the point of view of how it was asked.

Disclaimer: I've not yet done the empirical test of actually posting my version of an old question. But I don't have any reason to think it's wrong.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think it is often better to close and delete the old, badly written question, and then let the new asker write their own, better composed post. Then the post shows up as owned by the new asker; the new asker receives rep for it; and most importantly it does not lead to a situation where it appears that the original poster wrote things that they did not write. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Jan 10 at 14:27
  • $\begingroup$ @CarlMummert l agree—in fact I was going to edit my answer to say that I think the appropriate way of turning the bad question into a good one is to post a new version in one's own name rather than edit the old one. But then I thought about the issue of there possibly being existing good answers, and felt I shouldn't specify the method. $\endgroup$ – timtfj Jan 10 at 17:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .