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

Comments on Why closed questions tend not to get reopened?

Post

Why closed questions tend not to get reopened? [closed]

+0
−3

Closed as off topic by Canina‭ on Aug 31, 2021 at 19:24

This question is not within the scope of Writing.

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.

This post is about Q&A websites in general.

In StackExchange there is a culture of closing questions which do not reflect "the standards"; it's a culture that I as someone who uses SE since 2012 find extreme; firstly because of the vastness of this phenomenon and secondly because it causes questions to get automatically deleted.

  • Often times SE users will try their best to edit a closed question and would have make it "valid" by the sites' scope but the question would remain closed until deletion
  • I don't recall any closed question in the SE network to have ever been reopened beside some rare cases in WebMasters SE which is a very quiet website with barely any traffic compared to others there

Why closed questions tend not to get reopened?
The only explanation I know of is occupational burnout;
Maybe many humans are just not capable of dealing with such tremendous amounts of text in a dynamic way, unless the system is very ordinal, flexible and accessible.

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?

2 comment threads

Off topic (7 comments)
Feedback (1 comment)
Off topic
Olin Lathrop‭ wrote about 3 years ago

This post doesn't belong here. -1 because there is no excuse for not knowing that. Posts here are about writing. This isn't even about this site, but all the Codidact sites together. Flagging for moderator attention.

deleted user wrote about 3 years ago

I agree; I didn't find a more appropriate site in this network and I thought it would be accepted here as an exception based on broad interpretation for "writing" (writing in Q&A websites), I should have accepted that there isn't a suitable site for this here.

Olin Lathrop‭ wrote about 3 years ago

Then you didn't look very hard. That is what Meta site is all about.

deleted user wrote about 3 years ago · edited about 3 years ago

Olin Lathrop‭ I find that wrong; I deliberately posted this outside of Meta because I didn't want to focus the question about the Codidact network. I would agree that publishing this on Meta and asking members to not limit answers to Codidact, would have been better.

Olin Lathrop‭ wrote about 3 years ago

You wanted to discuss a broad concept. It was too broad for meta, so you posted in Writing instead!!? That makes no sense at best, and is a deliberate abuse of the system at worst. I would -1 a few more times if I could.

deleted user wrote about 3 years ago

I don't think it was too broad for meta, just not fit to meta; by broad interpretation of Writing I thought it fits here; I understand that communitywise it was wrong; point made.

gmcgath‭ wrote about 3 years ago

I agree that the post should have gone in Meta, but the responses are a bit excessive.