-3
$\begingroup$

I've very recently hit 3000 rep here on Chem SE (yay me).. The great thing about 3000 rep is that you get access to close votes and can now close or open questions (opening normally done by mods). At the same time, we have some backlog on the close question queue (a gentle reminder) (57 47 at the time of posting this)

Some of this questions are easily closed as they involve no effort homework questions that give no extra credit to the author, However there are some where the reason for closing is not really clear.

It seems as if many questions (where there is some effort but are closed) are shoved under the metaphorical rug using a shovel (Needs details or clarity) or using a crane (Not suitable for this site). On other questions, I see that due to the lack of formatting (blame me for not converting it into readable text), the close happens using the above instruments which don't really reflect the actual question. An example for this, only for 3000+ users

Can we have a chatroom like that of Math SE (or even use The Periodic Table), where the people who close such questions (where the reason is not exactly clear) can explain why they voted to close? In such a case commenting on the question is most ideal since the OP would also know.

There are people in the community who have done this regularly and I appreciate them for that.. Let's just make this community wide or as far as we can reach.

$\endgroup$
13
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ This is a community of volunteers, so you'd have a hard time getting people to play along. And in many cases, the OP does a drive-by, so it's not worth the investment to clean up their homework question for that reason (in addition to the community guidelines) alone, since we won't see them again anyway and the question isn't up to snuff. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Minehardt Mod
    Sep 20 '20 at 23:42
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Mechanisms are as they are. One can use custom close vote reasons. $\endgroup$
    – Mithoron
    Sep 21 '20 at 0:24
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Most (if not all) of the HW questions are low effort (maybe copy-text question or just a screenshot) and as Todd said, OPs of such questions are never seen again. They just post a low-effort question and adios, never to come or seen again. Close reasons for such questions are same (it looks like HW question, put some effort and make it a proper question) so it is not necessary to make a particular chatroom for it (new users aren't aware what a chatroom is). If OP wants an answer, he/she should acknowledge the action and edit the question or make a comment for justification/clarification. $\endgroup$ Sep 21 '20 at 5:16
  • $\begingroup$ @ToddMinehardt, There aren't any new users who have been trying to increase rep like I have, most of the the closers are older users who do check meta, I just wanted to close for actual reasons in questions that do show effort.. In case of the drive-by questions, we flag/close almost immediately which is accompanied with an auto comment (normally done by one of the first users who see the post). I normally clean those questions up if I were one of the first people to see it, so I am not asking for edits since I do that. There are other questions were the OP is a recurring user who accepts... $\endgroup$ Sep 21 '20 at 7:02
  • $\begingroup$ ...answers as well, I was talking about those kind of questions. $\endgroup$ Sep 21 '20 at 7:03
  • $\begingroup$ @Mithoron But they are seldom used which is why I asked if it could be done for the ones where there is a border between whether it is a question that is allowed here. I've had a question closed(later re-opened with no additional edits) just because one person voted to close on an earlier version which had a typo. $\endgroup$ Sep 21 '20 at 7:05
  • $\begingroup$ @NilayGhosh The chatroom wasn't for OP, but for the people who do vote to close questions just in case of the borderline questions. We do have a smaller community with a lower number of users and traffic so we don't need it at the scale on Math SE, just someplace where the community can decide on borderline questions before voting to close. I also understand that not everyone uses chat on Chem SE. $\endgroup$ Sep 21 '20 at 7:10
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It's normal that questions get closed and later reopened. Also closing isn't much of a biggie as you seem to think. If sth gets closed, while it shouldn't be, there's time to discuss, edit, reopen, etc. - talking can be done in comments, or chat, or meta, depending on situation. Still simple close, edit, reopen situation is usually superior to lengthy discussion. $\endgroup$
    – Mithoron
    Sep 21 '20 at 21:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You really should not write "3K" for "3000" since it violates three individual typographic rules. $\endgroup$
    – user7951
    Sep 24 '20 at 8:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @FadedGiant I honestly did not know that.. What is this about? I understand one of them is k should not be capitalised (k not K), what are the other 2? $\endgroup$ Sep 24 '20 at 8:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Safdar 1. The prefix symbol for "kilo" is k and not K. 2. A space is used to separate the numerical value from the prefix symbol. 3. A prefix symbols shall not stand alone without a unit symbol. $\endgroup$
    – user7951
    Sep 24 '20 at 9:32
  • $\begingroup$ @FadedGiant So, is there a possible way to write this since 3 k(unit?) cannot be done right? $\endgroup$ Sep 24 '20 at 9:34
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 3 krep $ $ :D $\endgroup$
    – Mithoron
    Sep 28 '20 at 18:33
11
$\begingroup$

I agree with many of the responses, but I think only @Mithoron is hitting the nail on the head. I don't see a need for a chatroom for this, and indeed I would rather not have one. If anything, I would prefer that people use the question comments for this, followed by meta if that isn't enough. These are public places which are already meant for discussion on the question — i.e. the "existing mechanisms" that were mentioned. A chatroom requires many extra steps for a user to get to (as a new user, how would you even know such a thing existed?). Also, what I find more dangerous is that this reinforces this notion of people "conspiring" to close questions (which arguably already happens in a subconscious manner due to the nature of the close vote queue). Personally, I cannot support any kind of action that could make that happen consciously.

I could see chat being used occasionally, e.g. when there is something that really needs to be closed ASAP, or if you're unsure about what close reason should be used. All these fall under normal uses of chat. But I would prefer not to go all-out and have a chatroom that is especially for closing stuff. That just doesn't sit well with me.

(I would also suggest to people to write answers, not comments. Answers don't really have to be all that long, as this one shows.)

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "what I find more dangerous is that this reinforces this notion..." A similar room existed (probably still exists) on Math.SE for which a similar criticism was raised some time ago: Meta post on Math SE $\endgroup$ Sep 24 '20 at 10:15

You must log in to answer this question.

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