Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Should we remove closed questions from the question list?

Parent

Should we remove closed questions from the question list?

+7
−1

Should we exclude closed questions from the question list?

Closed questions (and their answers) would still be linked on the owners' profiles, would be included in search results, and would produce the usual notifications from activity on them. This change would only be to get them out of the main view.

If a question is closed and being worked on (to fix the issues), this lets the author do so out of view. If the issues that caused it to be closed are addressed and the question is reopened, it returns to view. Meanwhile, it's not "in the way" and likely not attracting more downvotes. ("I know it's broken; you don't need to keep telling me!", the author might be thinking in response to more and more downvotes while trying to edit.)

If a question is closed and not being worked on to fix the issues, then it's unlikely to be helpful for it to be listed. While it sometimes happens that a third party sees a question, knows what the author was trying to ask, and fixes it (I've done this), it's uncommon. I can think of a few options we might consider to mitigate this: search by closure status, a filter, a user preference, show to people with the Curate ability. I'd like to understand how big a concern it is first and then we can decide what to do about it.

This question is not meant to preclude other housekeeping automation. I'm asking if withdrawing closed questions from the main public view would be a useful first step.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

This suggestion is similar (3 comments)
Post
+3
−2

Yes

I have been thinking about this for a while, even before Codidact existed and I think the hard reality is that it is almost impossible to have a "one size fits all" (what SE is basically trying) that works fine for everyone involved. Most of the time, it is a huge gap between newbies and experts and it is very difficult to ensure a satisfying experience for all.

Lundin has provided a way better explanation to support this idea in this post than I can possibly sustain in my answer. So, if you did not read that post, please do read it.

SE itself has a working version of this idea by using a Sandbox on Worldbuilding. I have tried it myself and it was a good experience (i.e. improved a question and asked it on the main site). However, the sandbox mechanics involves a few manual steps which are not that easy for an inexperienced user.

My proposal for such a "sandbox" (or similar, maybe "staging area" would sound better) is the following:

  • allow a question to be _moved _to the "sandbox" when being closed. Maybe add a checkbox in the close reason window. Anyone who can flag can also have such a checkbox to signal that the question should be moved to the "sandbox"
  • define the sandbox as a special question category that is accessible to all members. Maybe put a link in the right column, but not to be mixed with the "normal categories"
  • moving a question to the sandbox will also: remove all votes from it (maybe even disable voting for sandbox items, temporarily or entirely), notify the OP and the folks that left some comments. Existing answers do not make much sense in the sandbox, but they should be restored when the questions comes back to its normal category.
  • we can have more freedom in regard to the comments in the sandbox area (e.g. partially answer to this request).
  • the OP or another user with enough privilege can flag the question for it to be copied to its original category. Comments should not be copied. Votes start from 0/0.

The advantage such a system has over WorldBuilding's Sandbox is that the platform will natively support the sandbox concept. Another advantage is that the (typically newbie) user would not have to do any special action to follow this flow (these steps will be ensured by curators who in turn are helped by the platform to ensure a consistent flow).

The only significant disadvantage I see is the development effort:

  • move/clone functionality for a post and related entities
  • customizing of voting behavior (partial or total disable of voting)
  • proper notifications for everyone involved
History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Move/clone functionality is not that hard to do. I believe customizing of voting behavior per categor... (2 comments)
Move/clone functionality is not that hard to do. I believe customizing of voting behavior per categor...
manassehkatz‭ wrote about 3 years ago

Move/clone functionality is not that hard to do. I believe customizing of voting behavior per category is already a functional thing in some of our communities, so also not a big deal. However, I think a true sandbox (i.e., full separate category rather than just "close = limit stuff until reopened") is only really a good idea on communities where there is a need (for competitive or other reasons) to go through a serious collaborative question editing process prior to going "live". That is certainly the case with Code Gold (and I believe the solution we have here for that is superior to Someplace Else) and possibly for things like Worldbuilding/Speculation where you are trying to create a question that will get people "thinking" rather than simply getting people to "answer". Asking a question about how to do something safely in Outdoors or how to fix a programming bug etc. and a full-blown sandbox is, IMHO, overkill.

Alexei‭ wrote about 3 years ago

Yes, I agree. The sandbox should be an opt-in, not a default option for a community. Software Development is also a good candidate because many recent questions are low quality and could be improved with some community members and OP effort.