> I often [find] a question on [...] Stack Exchange [but] some moderator [has] closed it before it got answered. How often is often in practice, though? This i

> I often [find] a question on [...] Stack Exchange [but] some moderator [has] closed it before it got answered. How often is often in practice, though? This is a common objection, and I see it mentioned a lot by disgruntled commenters here. This is just another form of observational bias, and in reality the situaion described is pretty rare... There are many times that SO and SE sites have been useful to me, both is finding answers to existing questions, asking questions that are then answered, and also providing answers myself. I agree that it can be infuriating to see a question that you want answered on the site, but it has been closed as 'off topic' or 'irrelevant' or the classic 'not suitable for a question-and-answer format site.' However, this has not happened to me much in the several years I have used the site(s) so I have to assume one of the following is true: a. I only ask/search for the 'right' kinds of questions? b. Closed questions are not that common? Due to the annoyance factor, I think that b. is what is happening, and people just weight those occurrences much higher in their subconcious. That means they will recall them more readily, thus giving the false impression that it happens a lot. This is actually a very common observational bias, which people should be more aware of. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic The availability heuristic is the idea that if something can be readily recalled, it must be important, or at least more important than alternatives which are not as readily recalled. The easier it is to recall the consequences of something the greater those consequences are often perceived to be, and similarly the greater the consequences the easier somehing is to recall. This means strong negative associations with closed answers make those easy to remember, and people incorrectly estimate the frequency of this situation to be much greater than it actually is.