Proposal: Add a "too basic"/"uninteresting" off-topic option

Question

Also see: Proposal: Require a whitelisted URL to close as General Reference

It is clear that many close-voters use the "commonly available references" option as a catchall for questions that they just don't like for one reason or another, regardless of whether the answer to the question can actually be found in a commonly available reference. Not only is this capricious, unfriendly, and unfair, but by making it difficult for a reasonable person to determine what is or is not "off-topic" here, it actually encourages the submission of low-quality questions. This is exactly the situation that SE Community Coordinator Shog9 was hoping to avoid when he strongly urged us to clearly define what constitutes General Reference at this site—which we have never done. I therefore submit a proposal that, alone or in concert with the other proposal I am submitting today, will help resolve the current untenable situation.

I recommend that a new off-topic option be created that reads as follows:

Questions that are too basic or uninteresting are off-topic. For more information, see: (new Help Center page)

The new Help Center page would give guidelines for determining whether a question is too basic or uninteresting. Please use the answers to this question to start building content for the new Help Center page.

I think that closing questions for being "too basic" or "uninteresting" is a horrible idea that will never work, for reasons I've expressed at length elsewhere, but I do not believe it can reasonably be denied that that is, in fact, what we do. That being the case, and pardon me for being blunt, the current system—in which voters decide first that a question is "bad" and then pick a close reason as a cynical ex post facto rationalization for turfing it—is dishonest and makes liars out of those who willingly participate in it. We owe it both to the greater Internet-using public and to ourselves to explain simply and accurately why we choose to close questions.

With this new option in place, we'll be able to limit use of the General Reference option to questions that can actually be easily looked up, rather than sending the OP on a wild goose chase looking through online dictionaries for help with their comma splice problem, except that they don't know it's a comma splice problem because we closed their question as GR rather than telling them that it's a comma splice problem.

So if you've been looking for an option you can use to close questions you just don't like, here it is at last. Use it in good conscience. Own it.

Also see: Proposal: Require a whitelisted URL to close as General Reference. I've tried raising these issues before, and nothing came of it. It's time for some straightforward, actionable proposals that can be accepted or rejected. I have made two separate proposals because I believe they can be effective singly or together, and should be voted on independently of one another. Personally, I would prefer to reject this one and enact the other one, but anything would be preferable to the current practice of saying one thing and doing another. On a website that's explicitly devoted to communication, let's at least make a concerted effort to say what we mean and mean what we say.

Answer 1

Perhaps what we need is an insufficient research close reason. We can and should downvote for a lack of evidence of research, but there's no legitimate close reason for that. Maybe there should be?

@AndrewLeach wrote a great post earlier this year about showing research. Here are some quotes:

The answer to "how much research is needed?" is "Enough to show:— that you have done some; that you understand what you are asking about; and you can explain all of that to people who have no prior knowledge of the problem at all." Every question needs at least one of those criteria to be satisfied; most need more than one and many need all three.

Asking good questions takes time. Questions should not simply be thrown together, and it's very unlikely that they can be templated and simply adapted from one to the next. All the research is unique to each question. Even writing this answer, which is heavily based on something already written, has taken a surprising amount of time. Invest in asking to realise a useful return in a comprehensive answer. I would certainly expect someone producing questions for ELU not to manage more than two per day before becoming worn out with the effort.

Answer 2

You're right users do abuse the general reference option to close questions because sometimes to actually explain the reason why in the "other reasons" box which pops up is, at least for me, problematic. It's easier to click GR especially if I can't find a duplicate.

There can be several issues which summed up will justify to my mind that a question needs to be put on hold. The theory being the OP has the time to improve their question. The OP can comment on his post and ask for clarification, and users can help the OP to write a more detailed and thought provoking question. I see plenty of comments posted which are helpful, and plenty which contain the actual answer(s). In other words GR is a shorter way of saying

Unfortunately, your question is considered too basic for this site by five users, please try to do some minimal research first and explain why you are still confused. We will be only too glad to help you, if we can. Thank you.

The truth is, that many newcomers are akin to Hit&Run users. They shoot a question and then disappear, forever. Should we deliberately keep their "off topic" questions open, if we can't formulate a comprehensive reason every single time? Why? If the OPs themselves cannot be bothered to comment, ask why or to edit their posts in the first place?

Answer 3

The reason you're looking for already exists, and it's called "general reference". Personally I would word it a little differently, but fundamentally I wouldn't change it.

"Linguists, etymologists, and (serious) English language enthusiasts would already know this and/or be able to quickly look it up in commonly-available references."

We have gone to pains to define what constitutes a "commonly-available reference" on this site. It isn't all-inclusive, but it's a good starting place for someone doing research.

And I personally also consider "common usage" to be a reference of sorts. This site cannot benefit from answering questions that would be obvious to any native-speaking grade-schooler. That's (partly) why ELL exists, and the lack of a "belongs on ELL" close-vote reason still mystifies me.

(Edit to add) I think this close reason (particularly with the new wording) also covers the "insufficient research" problem, which is a big deal with a lot of these questions.