Please vote on this proposal to ban from question titles certain words whose posts we usually end up closing and deleting

Question

In reaction to high failure rates of questions with titles containing the word "problem", the Stack Overflow community long ago forbade these. You couldn't ask a new question with the word "problem" in its title, nor could you save an edit to an existing question with the word "problem" still there. If you tried to either of those, a red popup appeared telling you why this wasn't allowed.

Thinking that ELU might benefit from something similar, four and a half years ago I collected aggregate data on how many questions with certain title words in them were getting closed or deleted. Those ancient data showed failure rates of around 50% for candidate titles.

Since that time, the associated failure rates have exploded dramatically: the current failure rates are almost half again as bad as they were then, closer to 75% now overall, not just the 50% of five years ago.

Enough is enough!

Stack Overflow implemented their title bad on the word "problems" when the associated failure rate was a lowly 20%, a mere pittance compared to what we are now suffering.

I therefore formally propose to the ELU community that we ban from our titles certain words and phrases with demonstrated failure rates above 50%.

So that the community at large can reach consensus here via voting, please give answers that are either (1) in favor of this proposal or (2) against this proposal. Be sure to include any comments or concerns in those answers.

If community consensus is to implement this ban, we'll then decide what text we want on the red popup messages that the ban will trigger. Those are details we'll hammer out as a community under a separate post here on meta later on down the road.

Here follow the raw data, taken today, ordered using four different criteria to help you better assess the impact these questions are currently having on the health of our site and of our community. The column headers are:

1. IN TITLE: which word or words in the question title these data are for
2. TOTAL: how many such questions in total, irrespective of state
3. OPEN: how many such questions have been neither closed nor deleted
4. !OPEN: how many such questions have been closed, deleted, or both
5. FAIL %: the percentage of how many such question are no longer open and undeleted on the site

Remember that Stack Overflow banned "problem" when it was at only 20%. We're at much greater than 50%, often 80% or more. These should go.

1. Sorted by how many were closed or deleted (!OPEN)

IN TITLE       TOTAL  OPEN !OPEN  FAIL %
-----------------------------------------
correct         9282  2946  6336   68.26%
help            1827   352  1475   80.73%
grammar         1681   361  1320   78.52%
please          1375   214  1161   84.44%
grammatically   1468   403  1065   72.55%
right           1434   534   900   62.76%
which is        1401   578   823   58.74%
which one        867   225   642   74.05%
help me          617    68   549   88.98%
grammatical      916   399   517   56.44%
wrong            893   387   506   56.66%
which one is     638   153   485   76.02%
problem          649   219   430   66.26%
correctly        600   200   400   66.67%
please help      288    19   269   93.40%
incorrect        405   186   219   54.07%
please help me   204    10   194   95.10%
ielts            161     6   155   96.27%
need help        195    48   147   75.38%
is wrong         148    55    93   62.84%
problems         173    80    93   53.76%
mla               91    15    76   83.52%
grammer           69     1    68   98.55%
trouble          107    45    62   56.07%
the below         65    10    55   84.61%
gre               64    18    46   71.88%
your help         30     4    26   86.67%
urgent            27     4    23   85.19%
have a problem    16     5    11   68.75%
shit              12     2    10   86.67%
having trouble    15     5    10   66.67%
troubles          10     2     8   80.00%
grammarly         11     3     8   72.73%
corect             7     0     7  100.00%
grammaticaly       6     0     6  100.00%
grammatic          7     1     6   85.71%
plz help           5     0     5  100.00%
grama              3     0     3  100.00%
gramar             2     0     2  100.00%
fuck               5     5     0  100.00%
need your help    17    17     0  100.00%
plz               22    22     0  100.00%
urgently           3     3     0  100.00%

2. Sorted by failure rate (FAIL %)

IN TITLE       TOTAL  OPEN !OPEN  FAIL %
-----------------------------------------
corect             7     0     7  100.00%
grammaticaly       6     0     6  100.00%
plz help           5     0     5  100.00%
grama              3     0     3  100.00%
gramar             2     0     2  100.00%
plz               22    22     0  100.00%
need your help    17    17     0  100.00%
fuck               5     5     0  100.00%
urgently           3     3     0  100.00%
grammer           69     1    68   98.55%
ielts            161     6   155   96.27%
please help me   204    10   194   95.10%
please help      288    19   269   93.40%
help me          617    68   549   88.98%
your help         30     4    26   86.67%
shit              12     2    10   86.67%
grammatic          7     1     6   85.71%
urgent            27     4    23   85.19%
the below         65    10    55   84.61%
please          1375   214  1161   84.44%
mla               91    15    76   83.52%
help            1827   352  1475   80.73%
troubles          10     2     8   80.00%
grammar         1681   361  1320   78.52%
which one is     638   153   485   76.02%
need help        195    48   147   75.38%
which one        867   225   642   74.05%
grammarly         11     3     8   72.73%
grammatically   1468   403  1065   72.55%
gre               64    18    46   71.88%
have a problem    16     5    11   68.75%
correct         9282  2946  6336   68.26%
correctly        600   200   400   66.67%
having trouble    15     5    10   66.67%
problem          649   219   430   66.26%
is wrong         148    55    93   62.84%
right           1434   534   900   62.76%
which is        1401   578   823   58.74%
wrong            893   387   506   56.66%
grammatical      916   399   517   56.44%
trouble          107    45    62   56.07%
incorrect        405   186   219   54.07%
problems         173    80    93   53.76%

3. Sorted by total questions asked (TOTAL)

IN TITLE       TOTAL  OPEN !OPEN  FAIL %
-----------------------------------------
correct         9282  2946  6336   68.26%
help            1827   352  1475   80.73%
grammar         1681   361  1320   78.52%
grammatically   1468   403  1065   72.55%
right           1434   534   900   62.76%
which is        1401   578   823   58.74%
please          1375   214  1161   84.44%
grammatical      916   399   517   56.44%
wrong            893   387   506   56.66%
which one        867   225   642   74.05%
problem          649   219   430   66.26%
which one is     638   153   485   76.02%
help me          617    68   549   88.98%
correctly        600   200   400   66.67%
incorrect        405   186   219   54.07%
please help      288    19   269   93.40%
please help me   204    10   194   95.10%
need help        195    48   147   75.38%
problems         173    80    93   53.76%
ielts            161     6   155   96.27%
is wrong         148    55    93   62.84%
trouble          107    45    62   56.07%
mla               91    15    76   83.52%
grammer           69     1    68   98.55%
the below         65    10    55   84.61%
gre               64    18    46   71.88%
your help         30     4    26   86.67%
urgent            27     4    23   85.19%
plz               22    22     0  100.00%
need your help    17    17     0  100.00%
have a problem    16     5    11   68.75%
having trouble    15     5    10   66.67%
shit              12     2    10   86.67%
grammarly         11     3     8   72.73%
troubles          10     2     8   80.00%
corect             7     0     7  100.00%
grammatic          7     1     6   85.71%
grammaticaly       6     0     6  100.00%
fuck               5     5     0  100.00%
plz help           5     0     5  100.00%
grama              3     0     3  100.00%
urgently           3     3     0  100.00%
gramar             2     0     2  100.00%

4. Sorted alphabetically (IN TITLE)

IN TITLE       TOTAL  OPEN !OPEN  FAIL %
-----------------------------------------
corect             7     0     7  100.00%
correct         9282  2946  6336   68.26%
correctly        600   200   400   66.67%
fuck               5     5     0  100.00%
grama              3     0     3  100.00%
gramar             2     0     2  100.00%
grammar         1681   361  1320   78.52%
grammarly         11     3     8   72.73%
grammatic          7     1     6   85.71%
grammatical      916   399   517   56.44%
grammatically   1468   403  1065   72.55%
grammaticaly       6     0     6  100.00%
grammer           69     1    68   98.55%
gre               64    18    46   71.88%
have a problem    16     5    11   68.75%
having trouble    15     5    10   66.67%
help            1827   352  1475   80.73%
help me          617    68   549   88.98%
ielts            161     6   155   96.27%
incorrect        405   186   219   54.07%
is wrong         148    55    93   62.84%
mla               91    15    76   83.52%
need help        195    48   147   75.38%
need your help    17    17     0  100.00%
please          1375   214  1161   84.44%
please help      288    19   269   93.40%
please help me   204    10   194   95.10%
plz               22    22     0  100.00%
plz help           5     0     5  100.00%
problem          649   219   430   66.26%
problems         173    80    93   53.76%
right           1434   534   900   62.76%
shit              12     2    10   86.67%
the below         65    10    55   84.61%
trouble          107    45    62   56.07%
troubles          10     2     8   80.00%
urgent            27     4    23   85.19%
urgently           3     3     0  100.00%
which is        1401   578   823   58.74%
which one        867   225   642   74.05%
which one is     638   153   485   76.02%
wrong            893   387   506   56.66%
your help         30     4    26   86.67%

For comparison, overall since the site began we have a failure rate of 53.17%, with 60,707 deleted questions, 28,561 closed but not deleted questions, and 78,613 questions that are neither closed nor deleted.

Answer 1

Yes, but not for trusted users the 'old hands'

This ban should only be implemented for new users.

I suggest that users with the Established User Close/Reopen privilege should not be limited, in the event that there is a legitimate question to be asked with any of the above words. (Thanks for the suggestion, @tchrist)

These users are already having a vote in whether such questions should exist, so should be au fait with what is on topic.

This would mean users with more than 1,000 reputation 3,000 reputation would be exempt from the ban.

There are some open questions on there, and as addressed in the comments, some words have other meanings (troubles for example).

Answer 2

No, we should not adopt this proposal!

Vote this answer up if you think the proposal should not be adopted. If you disagree, upvote the corresponding aye-answer.

(Feel free to add your own answer if you have improvements that would make the proposal acceptable to you.)

Answer 3

Yes, with proper scrutiny

There should be a new meta post in which (an updated version of) the list of banned words is posted as an answer, for everyone to see.

That post should have a separate community-wiki answer where users can propose new words to be added to and removed from the list.

The reason for this is that some words may well be part of a good title, even though it doesn't look like it now.

Answer 4

There are some problems with this proposal.

One is that this is a website about English Language & Usage, so every word we outright ban is going to be a word that can not be used in the title of a hypothetically legitimate question about the word. It'd be hard to talk about the origin, usage or orthography of plz if it's removed altogether. Sure, that might not seem like a large loss, but we've had serious inquiries regarding the discussion of abbreviated webslang before, such as What is the Meaning of Z.O.M.G., and if we do not already have a question regarding plz (I can't find one at the moment), then surely one has potential. Perhaps we can delete the multiple word strings without risking too much lost potential, since they seem fairly literal and hint more towards the nature of the question.

And look, I get it: I've played some online multiplayer games in the past, most relevantly including Realm of the Mad God. "Plz gimme X" is often considered a pretty frustrating sentiment for a variety of reasons I don't think need explanation.

However, this leads into the other problem which is even if we assume that questions using these sorts of questions only have marginal potential, we still need to ask ourselves if the benefits outweight the detriments, and to be honest the only benefit I am seeing is aesthetic. Otherwise, not only does banning single words as this proposed change suggests obstruct asking questions, but it also makes it harder to identify questions which should be closed for being proofreading, or too opinion based. Once the questions are closed, the better solution to make the site prettier is to simply delete them if they are utterly lacking in merit. It's more dirty work sure, but it is also work that needs to be done in accordance to broken windows theory.

Words like fuck, shit, bitch, tits, nigger, faggot, cunt and maybe damn should be added, because Stack Exchange has prohibited such words because the detriment offensive language cussing has on the network as a whole, in the form of getting the website on automated blacklists and making the network inhospitable to the broader S.E. membership, is more trouble than it is worth. It would save the community a whole bunch of hassle in editing these words out of questions.

However, if we don't even think damn should be censored in the titles because the website can't function properly or be taken seriously at that level of censorship, then what does removing innocuous words like incorrect or grammar, or even polite words such as please, say about us?

Now, I have less of a problem with blocking the multiple word phrases like "having trouble", "have a problem", "need your help" or "please help me" since those are fairly extrenuous phrases that do little to help and speak to the nature of the question, but even I doubt it would help much.

Answer 5

Yes, we should adopt this proposal!

Vote this answer up to say that you think the proposal has merit and should be adopted. You can vote it down to say that you don’t think so, or you can vote up the corresponding nay-answer.

You should also feel free to add your own answer if you would like to fine-tune the proposal.

Answer 6

Yes, but we should commit to reviewing policy effects in a few months.

In general, I agree with the urgency of the issue. When a significant portion of questions are moderated, we should look for tools that increase the quality of questions. Yet, I see a few potential issues that we should commit to examining a few months after implementation:

1. Convenience: Is this a nuisance to existing users, who could conceivably ask good questions with several of these terms?

2. Effectiveness: Does the rate of closed and downvoted questions decrease? (Related questions that may be more difficult to assess quantitatively: Are users getting around the filter? Do they genuinely end up asking better questions? Do they give up?)

3. Being Welcoming: Do we decrease the rate of upvoted questions from new users? (They may try to ask a legitimate question with the word and grow discouraged by the filter.)

Studying these three factors would ensure we're not discouraging high-effort contributions by new and existing users in aggressively filtering low-effort contributions. The method is proven in the main Stack Exchange, but they also have higher volume and a different demographic, so we should commit to being appropriately cautious. Especially with 2 and 3, I think comparisons of rates some months after implementation should be used to fine-tune the filters or take additional actions.

Answer 7

Why is it, that those words tend to be found in unsuitable questions? Does anybody know?

Is it because the person asking tupically ‘needs help or has a problem’ (that seems to be the main theme)?

...Does that then indicate questions that are ‘please help me with my homework?’ Or are from people whose literacy currently happens to be at a level which means that the question is poorly formed and can’t really be answered properly?

It would be interesting to hear, from those who often close questions, as I have rarely done that, so I don’t have a feel for it.

Rather than ‘banning words’, which I sense people feel is a bit contra to the ethos of the site, how about flagging up the title to the asker, before they post? (Similar to what happens when you try to post a 3 word comment). An error message could come up, guiding the asker to the help text and making suggestions for proper usage. It could also suggest the Learners site if that seems more appropriate.

Answer 8

No: I believe this proposal will do little to further the goals of the long term survival of the human species.

On the face of it this is horribly elitist. After reflection is it manifestly sick.

For the one proposal to allow trusted users to circumvent I think most of the people with 1-3-20k reps no longer need this site, they are here to help others so offering them tools to circumvent a novice ban is kind of pointless.

All I know is that every time another SE proposal comes along to bash bad questions on any of the stacks I loose a lot of respect and have to spend valuable time trying to justify why I provide my time to a system that is scared of 'bad' data. My proposal to all these reactions has always been the same because the basic problem does not seem to be understood.

The solution is to hide the scum from those that suffer from the righteous indignation about it.

• Disk space is cheap.
• People are not offended by weak, poor, sloppy questions if they are browsing SE.
• Almost all visits to SE are as a result of a internet search.
• Even bad data is data and even if a question only helps 2 people it was worth having.
• Let the now rep members spend time editing, patching up and answering the bad questions and working for reputation.

So the answer is to have a flag, something like Beneath Me that makes a question invisible to fussy users. Have this flag triggered by a <99 rep user asking a question, a bad word in the title or the text, a >100 rep user setting the flag or >3 down votes. Questions with the flag set are not shown to users with rep >1000 by default and they can rest easy, all bad questions gone and site back to pristine operation.

My suggestions as above generally gain down votes but very few explanations of why it is not good policy to first be kind and avoid waste. It may be because people feel they have some personal vested interest in the site because they have volunteered for a long time and answered a lot of questions and have no desire to suffer fools gladly or otherwise. I do try to remind all the people that want to be elitist on the site that they are the product and the site is the marketing and they have no need to feel too much pride if the site also caters to others less wise than they are. The site will not crash or fall over or fail to work if it has junk in it. Google already knows how to direct people to the questions that have useful answers and there is no shame in having a good answer to a bad question. StackExchange is not paying you a salary, why are you victimising people to maintain standards that are not required.

So if anyone has a valid reason to down vote this then PLEASE share it with me as I also want to learn. Otherwise take up the crusade to stop victimising bad data for the sake of invisible appearances.

Answer 9

I'm not sure about this.

1. If you consider questions by failure rate then it's really just showing that questions riddled with typos stay closed.

2. It doesn't measure at all the number one problem on this site: utterly unresearched questions. What if we prevented questions that didn't contain at least one link or block-quote from being submitted? That wouldn't solve the problems on this site, and it would still let through thousands of bad questions, but it would filter a lot of extremely poor ones.

   Recent examples that wouldn't meet that simple criteria:

   • https://english.stackexchange.com/revisions/512744/1
   • https://english.stackexchange.com/revisions/512746/1
   • Does having a temper make you angry or calm?