3

In my reviewing task today, the 'plural of status' question came up and I was invited to edit it if I wished it to be re-opened.

I was surprised that it had been closed as it is, to me, an interesting question with informative answers.

=======================================

Note : I have rolled back my edit to where it was before.

  • 5
    I notice you edited into it a "research". Why though? It's been asked, answered, and left there for 180k people to see. Adding that "research", I think, was unnecessary. It's eight years old. The scope was probably less well-defined back then. – NVZ Jan 24 '18 at 16:38
  • 4
    @curiousdannii I upvoted your last question because asking for the plural of "status" is not inherently interesting, and I suppose the 1st vote to close was mine, but Nigel J's edit has improved the original question, it is not vandalism. Vandalism suggests destruction and defacing, I see nothing of the sort in the EDIT. – Mari-Lou A Jan 25 '18 at 11:09
  • @Mari-LouA It is vandalism because it puts Nigel's concerns ("cumbersome") in place of the OP's concerns. Nigel isn't a mindreader, so he can't know what research the OP did, or why they still have a question. – curiousdannii Jan 25 '18 at 11:13
  • @Mari-LouA Why will no one write their own questions? Why do so many users on this site dredge up old crap questions only to deface them by ignoring the OP's intentions? I seriously do not understand that mindset. Would appreciate an explanation. – curiousdannii Jan 25 '18 at 11:14
  • @curiousdannii sometimes the answers posted are really useful, and sometimes more could be said. In the "status" question I really don't see room for a "new" answer, but when a post is closed it is easier for hi-rep users to cast a vote in favour of deletion. I did not know that at the time, so now before voting to close a question, I ask myself, would I be disappointed if that question were deleted, if the answer is "no" I then VTC. – Mari-Lou A Jan 25 '18 at 11:19
  • @Mari-LouA The answers don't go anywhere as the question sits there in its original intended state? It's extremely rare for a question with several upvoted answers to be deleted, I don't think I've ever seen it except for mod deletions? – curiousdannii Jan 25 '18 at 11:21
  • @curiousdannii No, it's been done. It's rare (I hope) but it happens. You need 10k to see deleted posts. True if the Q is highly upvoted it's rare that four of five users will want to delete that question. – Mari-Lou A Jan 25 '18 at 11:23
  • @Mari-LouA I mean that I haven't seen Meta arguments about it - and considering the ridiculous arguments protection causes, I'm sure these deletions would cause even more. – curiousdannii Jan 25 '18 at 11:25
  • @curiousdannii yes, but if the deletion happens behind closed doors, so to speak, how would anyone know when a post was deleted. I have posted two questions on meta about deleted posts, but they were performed by mods. Keeping a LQ question with HQ answers open, adds a shield of protection. – Mari-Lou A Jan 25 '18 at 11:29
  • 1
    @Mitch I find your lack of research disturbing. :P – NVZ Jan 25 '18 at 13:53
8

It is almost eight years old—the very age of this site.

The scope was not as well-defined back then, and even simple questions were often well-received, and it stayed open for almost 7 years. Then one day it was pushed to the review queues, as can be seen on its timeline, which resulted in its closure.

Now, why would the reviewers close it? Because at the time of review, according to the site scope of that time, it was a question that showed no research effort.

The scope of Stack Exchange websites change over time, and it happens on some of them more-so than some others. Reviewers keep the current guidelines in mind when questions are reviewed.

3

It was closed because this was the question:

What is the plural form of "status"?

It is:

  1. Lazy
  2. Completely unresearched

Nigel J's edit:

  1. Adds research which the OP never performed, to our knowledge
  2. Adds his own personal value judgement of this word (cumbersome and unusual inflection (for "-es", really?)) which we can be certain the OP did not intend
  3. Turns the question into a can-we-trust-the-dictionaries question but without providing any real reasons for distrusting the dictionaries, because he only referenced two, both of which were in agreement. He could have at least cited disagreeing dictionaries!
  4. Effectively invalidates the existing answers because none of them concern the alleged cumbersome nature or "unusual" inflection, nor do they put forward strong enough cases because the question they answered was not calling them to mount defenses for dictionaries. All they thought they had to do was answer a simple lazy question. Half of them even cite the dictionaries now cited in the question, meaning they now look like joke answers.

It is time to stop using this site's existing questions as a place to prop up your hobby horses. There is no value in distorting other people's questions and answers just because you find something related interesting. Please write your own questions. Tailor them to your own personal interests, research, and quirks.

None of us are mind readers, and if a question does not explain why the OP is unsure, by the OP presenting their own research demonstrating the problem as they see it, none of us can add it.

  • 1
    I fully appreciate your point of view. This has been a learning experience for me. Your comments are fully noted.(+1). – Nigel J Jan 26 '18 at 0:46

You must log in to answer this question.

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