36
$\begingroup$

Not long ago, we had to adapt to the circumstances at hand regarding the changes to how close reasons were displayed. You can read more about this here.

We now have other changes. A good place to read about it is here. To summarize: the “Off-topic” banner has been replaced with “A community-specific reason”.

Therefore, we can effectively revert the changes we had to make in the first link I mentioned and bring back the close reason regarding context and relevance. Although this may be annoying, we are now in a situation which seems optimal and not a workaround: when the question is missing context, we communicate to the OP that the problem is not following some guidelines, which is more explicit, understandable and unambiguous to a newcomer than saying it is “off-topic” or “need[ing] details or clarity”, phrases which can have overloaded interpretations. We hope that we stabilize at this.

For reference, you can see how the closure was shown before the changes in the first link I mentioned. Now, it is shown as follows:

For the OP and those with privileges, with the difference being that “Private feedback for you” changes to “Viewable by the post author and users with the close/reopen votes privilege”:

enter image description here

For others:

enter image description here

The attentive reader may notice that there is a “Update the question so it's on-topic for Mathematics Stack Exchange” in this last image. (The “problem” being that there is a reference to being on-topic/off-topic.) If you think this is a problem, notice that it should be a minor one since it doesn't appear to the OP, who is the one that matters most. Some may even argue that this is not a problem. In any case, it should be of little relevance.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ This is really nice, especially the return of the lacking context close reason. $\endgroup$ – YiFan Apr 20 at 15:02
  • $\begingroup$ What is the difference between this new “Needs details or clarity” and “A community specific reason > Missing context or other details,” which is what we used to use? $\endgroup$ – gen-ℤ ready to perish Apr 25 at 3:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @gen-zreadytoperish Please, read the first link I referenced. Basically, we were using "needs details or clarity" because the "Off-topic" display changed and could be confusing. $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Apr 27 at 0:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I approve of the new menu of close reasons on math.stackexchange.com . I wonder if it can be acknowledged that this was my idea in the first place? $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy May 4 at 3:51
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelHardy let me repeat what I wrote in January 'Indeed, you insisted on the confusing nature of "off-topic" in this context many times in the past.' I then proceeded to thank you for your continued support of the site, and I will reiterate this too. That said, I have to stop short of acknowledging that 'this was [your] idea in the first place'; you had this good idea, but I do not have a global vision of all the proposals on SE, or just this site, and would not want to do an injustice to others that may have had the same idea prior, independently, etc. I am sure you'll understand. $\endgroup$ – quid May 4 at 13:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This is progress. $\endgroup$ – copper.hat May 5 at 21:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .