-9
$\begingroup$

When the post is closed, no longer answers are accepted as:

  1. the answer box gets removed.
  2. if you were writing something, the post answer option is no longer available.

In the latter case, I am suggesting the option be made available still as though for the various reasons the post closed but atleast the honest attempts at it don't go waste.

In such cases, some answers still manage to come as they came before the question got closed. What I'm saying is that if the questions isn't one that needs to be deleted but closed then perhaps we atleast allow those answers which were mid-way through so the efforts don't go waste.

What are your opinions on this? Should such a thing be introduced?

Feel free to edit the question if I have missed something, while retaining the intent. (Like more relevant examples, etc.) [Basically Wiki-type thing]

$\endgroup$
8
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ In theory, when a question is closed, there's a good reason for preventing users from posting answers (in practice, that may not be the case, but that's an argument for another day). If it's closed as a duplicate, post your answer at the duplicate target (unless, of course, your answer would be a duplicate). If you feel it was closed wrongly, post to the "request for reopen etc." thread, and see what you can do to get it reopened. Otherwise, be happy you didn't get to post an answer to a question bound for closing, that attracts the EoQS sanctions to you. $\endgroup$ Aug 1 at 5:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I understand the emotions around that question (and hence the reopen votes) but I have a different opinion on this question : it can be rewritten carefully as "why are Hermetian forms on local rings relevant today?" and then the question would be more useful for this forum. Honestly, I'm perfectly fine if this question reopens and the OP gets the services they need , given the background, but I would advocate editing of the question to make sure it is useful as a reference request as well. $\endgroup$ Aug 1 at 6:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In fact, I've voted to reopen the question but on the faith that this will be treated as and eventually converted to a reference request by a useful contributor. I would rather answers focus on the mathematics, while the comments be reserved for consolation (up to some reasonable limit). $\endgroup$ Aug 1 at 6:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The post is not reopened. I just want to point out that what you wrote in the comment section of that post says nothing about Hermitian forms on local ring, and thus is not an answer to the question. (The same can be said about the other answer in that post). $\endgroup$ Aug 1 at 6:38
  • $\begingroup$ (By "not" I meant to say "now") $\endgroup$ Aug 1 at 6:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson you should post your comment as an answer, it's quite good. $\endgroup$ Aug 1 at 20:45
  • $\begingroup$ I think the answer posted by D.W. incorporates most of what was in my comment. $\endgroup$ Aug 2 at 4:15
  • $\begingroup$ You have missed that many others have tried to suggest such a thing, and missed all of the many technical, logistical, and basic philosophical reasons why this is a bad idea and will never be implemented. $\endgroup$
    – Nij
    Aug 2 at 5:19

1 Answer 1

8
$\begingroup$

Nope. There are good reasons for blocking people from submitting answers to questions that are on hold. We want to make sure the question meets the site's quality standards before taking answers. We have lengthy experience that accepting answers to questions that don't yet meet the site's quality standards can create a mess.

For instance, when a question isn't clear, then people answering can create a mess, because they may answer based on their guesses at the question, but if that doesn't turn out to be a correct understanding, we can end up with multiple answers that aren't relevant to the asker. Or, answerers can waste their time answering a question that isn't what the poster really wanted to know. Or, if a question isn't clear about the problem requirements or how answers should be evaluated, then it can be difficult for readers to vote on any existing answers.

The site generally works better when questions are in a good shape before people start to write answers. That's not something that can always be enforced perfectly, but the system is designed to nudge you towards that ideal.

If a question is put on hold, then normally there is a reason for that. The best response is to understand why it was put on hold. If it was a duplicate, then answer the other question. If you can fix the issues in the post, then you might consider editing the question to make it suitable for our site format, or leaving a comment to ask the author to fix it, or post your own version of the question that is better formulated, or just move along and answer some other question. If you are not able to address the issues, then it's best to avoid answering until the issues are resolved.

Caveat: If you are considering editing the question, be prepared that on this site, this might not be received well. Some people here believe it is important that the original poster make any changes that need to be made. So, it is generally safer to avoid editing and to avoid answering until the issues with the question have been addressed, if you want to minimize the chance of wasting your time. See also Guidelines for context edits and rewrites, What to do if I like the question in a post but the post is presented in a bad quality., https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/32617/14578.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ "If you can fix the issues in the post, then edit the question to make it suitable for our site format." Well, you can run into a lot of opposition for doing that, from other users who insist it's important that OP do this, and that others not do it for OP. $\endgroup$ Aug 2 at 4:14
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson whaat?! Seriously? Why? Would like to see such a discussion, can you please provide meta link, if any, to it? $\endgroup$ Aug 2 at 4:55
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson Thanks a lot, will check in engage after some time soon. $\endgroup$ Aug 2 at 7:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson, oh, excellent point. Thank you. I've added a caveat at the end, and made a minor revision to my recommendation on what to do in that case, based on your comment. I hope this better captures your helpful observation in the answer. $\endgroup$
    – D.W.
    Aug 3 at 3:44

You must log in to answer this question.

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