-3

Die Frage „Die weibliche Form des A-Worts“ wollte ich z.B. per „close“ schließen, da ich das Niveau schon als so niedrig erachte, dass die dort gestellte Frage eigentlich schon wie Sarkasmus bzw. Trolling erscheint. Es gibt bei „close“ aber keine Begründung „Niveau zu niedrig“.

Könnte diese Art der Begründung bitte ergänzt werden?


translated: I wanted to close the question “Die weibliche Form des A-Worts” because of its very low level. It even already sounds like sarcasm or trolling. But on “close”, there is no reason “level too low”.

Could you please add this reason for the close vote?

  • background: the quality of this Q&A site is suffering from the increasing number of low level questions. IMHO we need a quality filter. – äüö Aug 25 '15 at 14:59
  • 3
    Seems like a reason for a downvote to me … – chirlu Aug 25 '15 at 15:03
  • Can a question automatically be closed when its downvote counter falls below a certain value (e.g. -3)? – äüö Aug 25 '15 at 15:23
  • No, but it will, e.g., disappear from the front page. What do you hope for when you want to close the question? – chirlu Aug 25 '15 at 15:54
  • 2
    @falkb what you're proposing here is not a "quality filter", but a catch-all reason to close posts you don't like. – Vogel612 Aug 25 '15 at 20:00
  • No, the decision to close keeps the same no matter if I click close or downvote. But what I point to is there is no close reason "very low level" here. So I just can downvote but in that case the garbage grows higher instead of being cleaned. – äüö Aug 26 '15 at 6:29
  • What is meant by low level? Is the question too easy? Would you have the same question with "Die Frau ist ein Gigolo!"? There was a similar case. - DE: Was meinst Du mit niedrigem Niveau? Anstand oder sprachliche Herausforderung? Würdest Du bei der Frage "Die Frau ist ein Gigolo!" ebenso fragen? Ist die Frage zu leicht oder vielleicht zu anstößig? – user unknown Sep 15 '15 at 15:44
7

Could you please add this reason for the close vote?

Custom close reasons are to be used for frequently occurring situations to save the time of the close voters and in particular to provide better guidance to the askers in those cases – e.g, because you do not want to link the respective FAQ post, whenever you close a proofreading request.

If you wish, you can always type up a custom close reason saying whatever you want – but do not expect anybody to agree with you.

background: the quality of this Q&A site is suffering from the increasing number of low level questions. IMHO we need a quality filter.

I do not see any indication for a quality decrease. We have our share of low-quality posts, but we always had.

Can a question automatically be closed when its downvote counter falls below a certain value (e.g. -3)?

Contrary to common belief, low quality is not a reason for closing questions or deleting answers; low quality is a reason for downvoting. Of course, low quality and closeworthiness often coincide, but after all, the reason why we close questions is that there would be a problem with the answers, in most cases that we cannot adequately compare them or there can be arbitrarily many. Or with other words: Questions should be closed, if and only if they cannot be properly answered (except for obvious attempts at trolling, which should usually be flagged as offensive).

In the rare case that a question is low quality but not closeworthy, there usually is no harm in leaving it open as it should still receive useful answers. Moreover, given the rarity of such questions, closing them will hardly increase the overall site quality. Also keep in mind that asking a good question is something that needs to be learnt. The user whose first question has a low quality may ask better questions later on, but often only if we guide them on this matter.

I wanted to close the question “Die weibliche Form des A-Worts” because of its very low level. It even already sounds like sarcasm or trolling.

While you are welcome for flagging or voting to delete obvious attempts at trolling for that very reason, I do not think that this is one – and if it is, it is failed or bad one. Trolling only works if somebody else lets themselves get provoked and this did not happen here.

  • I don't understand why the reason for closing is limited to problems with answering, only. But +1 for taking the time for such a comprehensive answer. – äüö Aug 26 '15 at 6:48
  • 3
    I don't understand why the reason for closing is limited to problems with answering – Because that’s what closing does: It prevents answers; nothing else. If a question can be properly answered (and is not spam or offensive), why not let it be answered? – Wrzlprmft Aug 26 '15 at 7:14
  • Actually if the wording of a question leads to content we do not want to have because we need to fulfill PG-13 it should be edited, or deleted if applicable. Asking for a translation of rude words still is on topic for the language aspect, but it is a borderline case. PG-13 is needed for SE to not get banned by parental or company filters. Also having rude words in the question titles should be avoided whenever possible (think of people who open our site while at work). – Takkat Aug 26 '15 at 7:59
  • It prevents answers; nothing else - No, it also cleans up, and that for instance helps the users when browsing for topics because they will not see all the useless stuff anymore – äüö Aug 26 '15 at 10:10
  • @falkb: But that’s only when other factors are also given, like a non-positive score or no positively scoring answer (if I am not very much mistaken). – Wrzlprmft Aug 26 '15 at 10:40
  • OK, I'll go for that proposed custom close reason next time. I hope I'll find it, because I haven't seen one that time when my question occurred. So this has been answered now. Thanks a lot for the discussion. – äüö Aug 26 '15 at 11:04
  • 3
    @falkb: If you have to; but as I said: Do not expect anybody to agree with you. Also, please first consider using another close reason, which is in all likelihood more helpful to the asker. – Wrzlprmft Aug 26 '15 at 11:08
  • I'm going to think over my opinion. I just want SE not end up like other such Q&A sites in a big mud of data garbage... – äüö Aug 26 '15 at 11:13
0

Es gibt teilweise bereits Gründe wie anstößig, beleidigend oder kriminell, um Beiträge rasch und effizient zu löschen, wo es auch wirklich dringend geboten ist.

Ich halte allerdings «Volkes Stimme» (also Runter(-ab-)stimmen [downvote]) der Frage für effizient genug, um einer unpassenden Frage den Wind aus den Segeln zu nehmen.

«Niveaulos» oder «zu wenig Niveau» ist auch recht subjektiv als Kriterium. Jeder hat da wohl sein eigenes (Niveau). Das würde dann leicht zu (unergiebigen) Diskussionen führen.


Exexutive summary: No, present options are sufficient (IMHO).

  • Meta is English only. Other than that we do have such rules here too: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22232/… but language sites have a higher level of tolerance. – Takkat Sep 14 '15 at 10:56
  • Deswegen war die Idee, bei ganz vielen Downvotes nicht nur den Wind aus den Segeln zu nehmen, sondern bei Unterschreitung des Schwellwertes den Kahn ganz zu versenken, um den Teich für die Schifffahrt freizuhalten. Dann wäre meine Frage hier auch schon wieder verschwunden... ;-) – äüö Sep 14 '15 at 14:09
  • Nebenbei bemerkt: Falls ein Post beleidigend oder kriminell ist, bitte flaggen, und zwar als rude or abusive oder mit einer individuellen Flagge. Dafür braucht es keinen Schließgrund. Was anstößig betrifft, hängt es etwas davon ab, was Du als anstößig betrachtest. – Wrzlprmft Sep 14 '15 at 16:08
  • Habt alle recht, und ich habe meine Frage entsprechend editiert. @Takkat, how do I see, if #325 is accepted or a simple (albeit possibly reasonable) request? – Dirk Sep 14 '15 at 16:53
  • @Dirk: Meta posts coming from a Stack Exchange employee always are quite reasonable. Aarthi was a community manager at the time she wrote this. So it was not a question but a polite and rather binding request. In rare cases we can accept bilingual meta posts if German matters for any reason. – Takkat Sep 14 '15 at 17:13
  • Enlightened by ownership? Fortunately you do not want to become rich by running a hotel. ;-) – Dirk Sep 14 '15 at 17:37
  • @Dirk: yeah sure - the S.E. network is a privately run U.S. company. You may also be interested in this: stackexchange.com/legal – Takkat Sep 14 '15 at 19:56

You must log in to answer this question.

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