Since we updated the close modal text and post notices a few years ago, I've known that there are concerns about whether they're sufficiently clear for users and whether they're giving the correct guidance. We want to improve the text in these cases to ensure that we're guiding users as best we can.
An important note to keep in mind – the changes I'm planning for should be copy-related only. While there may be some concerns about the current state of the close modal or the post notices, those are out of scope for my current project.
Note, that to get to this point has been an effort of a couple of months of talking with people in places like the SO Close Vote Reviewers chat room, mods in the TL, and from some of my CM buddies (V2Blast and Slate). Thanks to all of the people who have helped me out and been patient with my random questions.
In the sections below, I've created recommendations for what we could update the text to, if changes are needed. I've tried to consider my own thoughts about the current reasons, my experience with helping communities create useful site-specific close reasons, and various comments from places I've seen where people have stated concerns with the current text. For brevity, I've referred to "close voting" or "voters" but this encompasses flagging/flaggers as well, since the text is identical between the two.
I'd like to think that these are about 90% there. From my current set of feedback these are significantly better than the current text and I'm really excited for y'all to see them. Do note, these aren't final and set in stone, so I'm open to suggestions, concerns, and other feedback – but it'd be really helpful if you can be clear about what I can do to improve them. Also, please try to focus on discussing one close reason per answer for voting and comment-replying purposes.
Goals:
To put you in the right context for these, here are my goals when drafting. In some cases, I may have goals specific to that close reason, so I'll mention that in the individual sections below.
Close modal
- Inform close voters of when to use the close reason. While many active reviewers already know this, we want to give enough info that new voters and flaggers understand these reasons, too.
- Help voters differentiate between close reasons, particularly in the case of "needs detail" and "needs focus".
Asker post notice
- Inform the asker why their question was closed and give them action items to improve it. Emphasize that this isn't a permanent state if they work to improve the question.
- Incentivize improving the question by explaining why it is necessary (i.e. if you fix it, you will get a better answer).
- Link to guidance where it exists.
- Remove any guidance that suggests asking a new question from all close reasons.
Public post notice
- Inform viewers why the question was closed
- Give guidance on how to help improve the question or what to do if the closure seems to be unnecessary (either due to error or the question being improved).
Overall
- These close reasons need to be applicable network-wide (within reason – yes, I know duplicate closure doesn't really happen on Code Review).
- Help unify the usage of close reasons a bit.
- If available, link to help guidance.
Minutiae
To preserve formatting, I've included the code we use in the text below. Text surrounded by dollar signs or including hashes (e.g. $this$ or #~this#) is automagically converted into text or links specific to that question, post, site or something else.
I've included the current and proposed text below, since I know seeing the asker guidance can be really difficult if you haven't had a post closed for one of these reasons.
Duplicate:
This doesn't change any of the functionality and still requires a duplicate target to have answers or be asked by the same person.
| Field | Current | Proposed |
|---|---|---|
| Modal Title | Duplicate | (No change) |
| Modal Description | This question has been asked before and already has an answer. | (No change) |
| General notice | This question already has #~questionCount#an answer here:This question already exists: | (No change) |
| Post owner guidance | Your post has been associated with a similar #~questionCount#question. If that question doesn’t answer your issue, [edit your question]($editUrl$) to highlight the difference between the associated question and yours. If edited, your question will be reviewed and might be reopened. $br$$br$ **Find out more about [duplicates]($duplicatesUrl$) and why your question [has been closed]($hasBeenClosedUrl$).** | (No change) |
| Guidance to others | A community #~closedUserCount#member has associated this post with a similar #~questionCount#question. | A community #~closedUserCount#member has associated this post with a similar #~questionCount#question. If you believe that the duplicate closure is incorrect, submit an [edit to the question]($editUrl$) to clarify the difference and recommend the question be reopened. |
Needs details or clarity
| Field | Current | Proposed |
|---|---|---|
| Modal Title | Needs details or clarity | (No change) |
| Modal Description | This question should include more details and clarify the problem. | This question is missing necessary details or it is unclear what specifically the question is asking. It should be edited to include the missing information and clarify the problem. |
| General notice | **Closed**. This question needs [details or clarity]($ClosedQuestionsUrl$). It is not currently accepting answers. | (No change) |
| Post owner guidance | Add details and clarify the problem you’re solving. This will help others answer the question. You can [edit the question]($EditQuestionUrl$) or [post a new one]($AskQuestionUrl$). | [Edit the question]($EditQuestionUrl$) to add relevant details and clarify your question. Adding more specific information will help others understand your issue and provide a better answer. If edited, your question will be reviewed and might be reopened. |
| Guidance to others | Add details and clarify the problem being solved. This will help others answer the question. You can [edit the question]($EditQuestionUrl$). | As written, this question is lacking some of the information it needs to be answered. If the author adds details in comments, consider [editing them into the question]($EditQuestionUrl$). Once there's sufficient detail to answer, vote to reopen the question. |
Needs more focus
| Field | Current | Proposed |
|---|---|---|
| Modal Title | Needs more focus | Needs more focus |
| Modal Description | This question currently includes multiple questions in one. It should focus on one problem only. | This post currently asks multiple different questions or is too broad to easily address in an answer. It should be edited to focus on a single, specific problem. |
| General notice | **Closed**. This question needs to be more [focused]($ClosedQuestionsUrl$). It is not currently accepting answers. | (No change) |
| Post owner guidance | Update the question so it focuses on one problem only. This will help others answer the question. You can [edit the question]($EditQuestionUrl$) or [post a new one]($AskQuestionUrl$). | [Edit the question]($EditQuestionUrl$) so that it focuses on a **single, specific problem**. Right now, your question may contain multiple distinct questions or is too broad to easily address in an answer. Narrowing the question will help others answer the question concisely. If edited, your question will be reviewed and might be reopened. |
| Guidance to others | Update the question so it focuses on one problem only. This will help others answer the question. You can [edit the question]($EditQuestionUrl$). | Guide the asker to update the question so it focuses on a single, specific problem. Narrowing the question will help others answer the question concisely. You may [edit the question]($EditQuestionUrl$) if you feel you can improve it yourself. If edited, the question will be reviewed and might be reopened. |
This used to be titled "Too broad". I'm not 100% against going back to that framing but I have some specific arguments for why I don't think going back is the right action here. Feel free to convince me otherwise.
The main reason is that "too broad" simply doesn't feel super helpful for people who don't know what that means. While I've included the terminology as a nod to people who have thought "needs focus" was an entirely different close reason, I also feel like "needs focus" does a better job of covering both "too many questions" and "would take an entire book to answer".
My main goal here was to ensure that both meanings are covered since the current text just seems to have forgotten the "too broad" aspect of the close reason entirely.
Opinion-based
| Field | Current | Proposed |
|---|---|---|
| Modal Title | Opinion-based | Opinion-based |
| Modal Description | This question is likely to be answered with opinions rather than facts and citations. It should be updated so it will lead to fact-based answers. | This question is asking for personal opinions that may lead to discussion or debate rather than objective solutions that can be supported with facts and citations. Not all subjective questions are off topic, so be sure you can identify which should be closed and which are in scope. |
| General notice | **Closed**. This question is [opinion-based]($ClosedQuestionsUrl$). It is not currently accepting answers. | (No change) |
| Post owner guidance | Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations. This will help others answer the question. You can [edit the question]($EditQuestionUrl$) or [post a new one]($AskQuestionUrl$). | Because this question may lead to opinionated discussion, debate, and answers, it has been closed. Please [edit]($EditQuestionUrl$) the question so it requires answers that include facts and citations or a detailed explanation of the proposed solution. If edited, your question will be reviewed and might be reopened. |
| Guidance to others | Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations. This will help others answer the question. You can [edit the question]($EditQuestionUrl$). | Because this question may lead to opinionated discussion, debate, and answers, it has been closed. You may [edit the question]($EditQuestionUrl$) if you feel you can improve it so that it requires answers that include facts and citations or a detailed explanation of the proposed solution. If edited, the question will be reviewed and might be reopened. |
Not going to lie, this one is the most complex to get right and I'm not sure it's there yet because of that. I'm toying with the idea of creating a new network-wide help page to link to that can be edited by mods on sites that deal with more subjective content (like Parenting, The Workplace, and Interpersonal Skills).
This current phrasing may also be too definite for sites where subjective content is a bit more accepted, so I'm interested to see how we can improve this, if that's the case.
Migration
| Field | Current | Proposed |
|---|---|---|
| Modal Title | This question belongs on another site in the Stack Exchange network | Should be migrated to another site |
| Modal Description | --- | This question is out of scope on this site but is on topic on another site in the Stack Exchange network and should be moved there. This close reason should only be used for questions that are of good quality and complete. |
| General notice | This question was migrated to [$toSiteName$]($destinationUrl$) because it can be answered by $destinationSiteAudience$. | This question was migrated to [$toSiteName$]($destinationUrl$) because it is [out of scope on]($OnTopicUrl$) [$SiteName$] but can be answered by $destinationSiteAudience$. |
I had two goals with this:
- Ensure that people understood that a question needed to be out of scope before it could be closed for migration –"better suited to site X" is not a reason to close if it's otherwise on topic.
- Ensure that people understand that they should not (as we say) "migrate crap".
And... that's it. As I said at the top, please use one answer per close reason unless you're giving overall feedback or have questions.
I'm not sure when we'll get this built, but I'd love to get responses in the next week so we can move forward and get it added to one of our dev team's calendars.
