3

Often some users post low quality questions. Quickly somebody comments the question explaining that it needs to be improved in order to get good answers but... the OP never modifies the question and it ends closed.
Can I edit those questions in order to tranform it to a answerable question? Surely the question will loose its original purpose. But I don't know whether is better that (a transformed question) or a closed question + new question.

For example: This question is good, but probably the poor source (Irving) ruined it. Or this one starts by a false idea, but it is still valid the question whether exist a relationship between the same cultural manifestation (knights) among different cultures. Or sometimes the question is too broad, but each piece of it is still a decent question.

Often we close questions too fast, and few OP actually edit the question to restore it. Hence, shall I try to transform the question and rescue it from the cementery, or it is better to start with a fresh new question?

4

If you can edit it so that its still at its core asking the question that was (ineptly) being asked before, yes please make that edit.

If you're not sure, but you know something related that could be asked and be an acceptable question, it would probably be better to make that point in the comments (feel free to offer to make the edit). Remember that the OP is the only one with the power to bestow a checkmark, and I have trouble seeing them bothering if the answers have nothing to do with the question they wanted answered.

Honestly, I think our biggest issue with closing questions isn't how quickly we do it, but that very little effort is ever put into rehabilitating held questions. They are almost never reopened, so its effectively a death penalty for questions, and I'm not sure its meant to be that way.

I'd say our second issue is that we probably hold too many, but that's just my personal opinion, and either way it wouldn't matter that much if it weren't for the first problem.

0

Q Can I transform a poor question?

Yes. We. Can. And you should, if you see an opportunity!

Often some users post low quality questions. Quickly somebody comments the question explaining that it needs to be improved in order to get good answers

That is the hallmark of insuring quality on this site. By far not used enough.

but… the OP never modifies the question

That is a problem on its own. Really, another meta-question: "How do we get OP's to cooperate? "

and it ends closed. Can I edit those questions in order to tranform it to a answerable question?

Yesterday. That is the stated goal here. If you can improve the questipon, go for it.

Surely the question will loose its original purpose. But I don't know whether is better that (a transformed question) or a closed question + new question.

That's a problem. Only that!

The original question and the original questioners intent should be kept. Perhaps that might not be possible, at all: then I'd say, question was not well suited for this format?

If it is salvageable, keeping the OP's intent intact: then go for it!

Problem being, most of the time:
Questions are often just tossed out, no clarification comes forward even if needed and requested in comments.

Currently, there is just shrugged shoulders as a solution going round. On that I'd personally suggest: either edit it radically after a few days of no-show/no-reactoion, or_ delete the question. — If OP isn't working with the commun ity, the community should either take the licenced-for-modification content and run with it; or reject the premise.

For example: This question is good, but probably the poor source (Irving) ruined it. Or this one starts by a false idea, but it is still valid the question whether exist a relationship between the same cultural manifestation (knights) among different cultures. Or sometimes the question is too broad, but each piece of it is still a decent question.

Examples are judged like OP here sees them. I see them differently. I'll leave it at that unless comments request otherwise, now.

Often we close questions too fast, and few OP actually edit the question to restore it.

We do not close question fast enough. What we, as a community, do, is unfortunately jumping on questions, 'answering' them, even if the questions are clearly off-topic. Or at least, very sub-standard.
Now, what is or isn't "off-topic" may be up for debate.
But we see people voting to close as OT, and then even answering the questions themselves anyway. Plus those who beg to disagree CVs, etc.

Hence, shall I try to transform the question and rescue it from the cementery, or it is better to start with a fresh new question?

Our main problem is IMO that we see a slew of very low quality questions and OPs not responding to quality improvement requests, at all. Or even arguing about what they see as necessary in comments (without edits to Q!) Quite a load of questions are also really quite bad.

We need faster closing of questions that need closing — and, connected, but not causally linked — more re-openings, but only due to edits to justify re-opening.

If anyone sees a core of a question that is worth salvation despite opposition in the form of DVs, close-votes or bad-sounding comments: if anyone sees any way of clearly and fairly easily improving any question, then we should do that.
The only problem is that OP's wishes and intents should be the guideline. And with unclear questions that is an immanent problem? For that we need cooperation from OP.

If that OP-cooperation is both 'not':
not forthcoming or too difficult to ascertain/guess: then we absolutely should wait a week, then leave the unfixed question to rot & roomba, take the core and ask the core(s) of any question anew. Just properly, this time?

Therefore, I suggest the following:

  1. Try to improve the question with OP. (if that fails within 14 days?)
  2. Try to improve the question alongside OP's intent (as best as you can((or have to)) guess)
  3. Take the valuable core of the question and ask it as you see will fit within the guidelines here: reseach it on you own, quote findings and assertions, etc.
  • Caveat: I do not know how "Duplicate" question-votes factor into this here. Any insights into that? – LаngLаngС Jan 6 at 23:47

You must log in to answer this question.

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