Post History

Observations on close messages

I would like to address close messages on Q&A, especially on Codidact and even more special to the community-to-be of Worldbuilding.

I approach this from a psychological point of view from a new user, freshly coming to Codidact and trying to post the first question (note that I am not this new user. I am analysing the UI/UX in fact and provide feedback on that. This is called a persona. And the technique behind it is extracting a user story about the user experience.).

I would also like to discern between the terms "Guidance" and "Explanation".

But for starters here are the examples of closing texts I was given by Monica Cellio elsewhere: 

<hr>

 > This question cannot be answered in its current form, because critical information is missing.

 > This post contains multiple questions or has many possible indistinguishable correct answers or requires extraordinary long answers.

All close notices end with:

 > This question was closed; new answers can no longer be added. Users with the reopen privilege may vote to reopen this question if it has been improved or closed incorrectly.

<hr>

I use **Guidance** as term to describe how to provide information to the user who is in a current state of "shock". I deem Guidance a psychological term here, although I do not know if this term is used in psychological studies.

I use **Explanation** as term to describe how an UI engages the user with factual information about the current situation.  

The current close messages are purely explanatory, stating the facts about a situation, but provide very little guidance how to handle the situation and how to understand it.

**User Experience**:

 * When posting a question the questioneer is in the following state:
    * question has a genuine background and interest (it is not a scam of sorts)
    * a genuine answer is anticipated
    * there was put a lot of effort into formulating the text
    * questioneer is convinced having done everything possible to provide information in a complete and digestable way
    * the question text is in "the best shape currently possible"
    * In this state "publish" is clicked.

 * When the close message hits, the following state is assumed:
    * shock. Why? What? Closed? What did I do wrong?
    * All anticipations are not met from one second to the next.
    * Why "critical information" is missing? I did give everything I have. 
    * Implication of closing: Your question is not suitable for this site. We are not interested in this question. We have shut down the question. You will never get answers. You cannot do anything about it. Only others can do something about it. Closing is considered a final state.
    * questioneers do not understand what went wrong and have no way of reacting to it. They are left alone with everything.
    * They wanted "just" to ask a question.

Consider a text like this:

<hr>

Thank you for posting your question! We endorse your participation in the community! 
Some users indicated that they cannot help you at the moment, because they do not have all information needed to formulate an adequate answer.
They should have posted in the comments asking about further input or pointing out things to consider for the question text. We invite you to react to the comments and find out what can be improved. You might even got proposals for editing the text, which you can review and edit as you see fit.

If you do not know what to change, please post a comment like "Can anyone assist in improving the question? I do not know what is needed here". With the feedback you gather, use the edit function to incorporate the new information into the question text.

We put your question in a special queue so that more users are made aware of your posting to come assist you.
You are also still invited to post more questions. Just this one question is currently needing improvements.  

Until the question is improved it is not possible for others to post new answers on it. This is to protect you from accumulating downvotes or answers that are not targeted on the intention of your question.
The question will be in a state of "awaiting improvements" to outside users. You can still communicate with the community by posting comments and answer them.

Once your question was edited and improved, the question will be set in "active" state again and users are free to post answers. Negative voting results will be reset and you get a fresh start.

We hope to improve the quality of questions and answers this way with your help and the help of the community.

<hr>

The text might be considered too long. I did not spent too much time in writing and optimizing it. But I wanted to show the content and tone that is needed to provide "Guidance".

In the following detailed description I number the blocks for easier reference. 

   1. The factual, technical information of how the system handles the situation are actually secondary. If terms like "queue" or "state" can be exchanged for a more "natural" explanation, it would be better.

   2. The focus has to be "What can the user do now" not "Describe the situation the user is _in_ now". Also not "Show the user how it should be done right by [link] [link] and [link]" only.

   3. If there would be really a system behind it that "closed" questions are given more priority to react upon, this would of course be even better. I also "invented" to reset downvote scores; this should be a real thing actually.

   4. All text snippets that put blame on the questioneer is to be omitted. The questioneer did nothing wrong and acted out of best intention and capabilities, this needs to be recognized/acknowledged. Further input is needed to help the community understand the intent of the question right. But also assistance is needed on the side of the questioneer.

   5. Questions have to be valued. Because without Q, there is no A. And the Q comes from human beings, users, seeking for help on something. And maybe unknowingly need help with their question also.

   6. Asking questions is the most fundamental way of learning. It is the most fundamental way of getting input on something. We learn that as a toddler already. That is why Q&A is so appealing to so many people. The concept is immediately known by everyone.

   7. But it is also a very vulnerable state. Admitting not knowing something and asking for help is a bold step to take and it needs a certain level of courage to do so. Mostly this is uncertainty in the beginning before it turns into courage. A leap-of-faith. 

   8. "Closing" a question is like to say "Shut up". That is like a punishment. It comes across verbally, but it can be felt physically if prior experience exists. This will cause people who experienced this once to consider twice opening their mouth again - that is asking another question. In short: They remain silent; they leave. And the site lost a valuable member most certainly for ever.

   9. That is the reason why "sites" (I mean a certain other one here) that push and focus solely on the answers and the value of answers for future readers and building a knowledge-base are essentially perverting the Q&A concept into the opposite. The question is assumed to be delivered on a silver plate by the user and that the answerers can choose what is worth answering or not. That is humiliating and arrogant and results in toxic behaviour _against_ those who provide the questions.

So in the light of Worldbuilding, [I advocate a "sandbox"](https://proposals.codidact.com/posts/292468) functionality instead of the normal "close vote" that is currently implemented.