3 ms·
a first step where the question is treated and discussed without possibility to answer. How would you enforce this - would you try to enforce it? If there's an
by jodrellblank 9y ago
a first step where the question is treated and discussed without possibility to answer.
How would you enforce this - would you try to enforce it? If there's any kind of comment box, you'll get people posting answers in there, if it's amenable to a short answer.
- alkonaut 9y agoI'm not sure. But suppose you did it another way then: Questions that are poor are (instead of closed) moved to a holding area from where they will either never return, OR they are improved upon, will be reviewed, and can return - at which point they don't have the baggage of multiple downvotes and close votes. Because they are now "reborn". The only thing I'm trying achieve is that the people trying to HELP the asker, and the people who are trying to close questions now work as quick as they can, simultaneously, but towards opposite goals.
- jodrellblank 9y agoHave you seen the "closed" messages? From the bottom of here: https://stackoverflow.com/help/closed-questions https://stackoverflow.com/help/closed-questions Closed "low quality" questions are marked "on hold" for five days, when they can be commented on and edited to be improved upon, and go into a review queue. From memory that message is in the big yellow close box on the question - that it is on hold pending improvement and review - but I can't google any to see. What you describe sounds like that, but in a separate area and without downvotes. Or, it sounds like they've tried to implement what you describe. Would it work if downvotes were reset when it got put on hold?
- alkonaut 9y agoIt would be enough if the downvotes and close votes were reset when it’s taken from hold. As per the other answer there are apparently tons of functionality in this area that I didn’t even know of - perhaps this already works!