In the last two days I have twice encountered my questions closed within minutes of posting. I am fairly new to posting questions on Politics.SE, and have found that rather than having any chance to improve my question, it is closed. The closed voters and down-voters don't seem to be revisiting or reevaluating questions after the edit, so it I would like to take it up in the meta forum.

Since downvotes and closes seem to be so quick, what consideration is offered to new questioners?

I am not taking this personally, I am just frustrated that there seems to be more "piling on" than constructive consideration. I question whether the result is to improve the content, or pass quick judgement and move on.

Questions related to this post are:

What is the expectation that the US intelligence community must answer questions posed in congressional a hearings?

Government intervention - Opinion Shows and Newscasts

| |
  • 5
    I don't have time for an answer now as I'm about to head out, but I will tell you that deleting your question and then re-posting it is extremely bad form, especially if it's put on-hold. Please don't do that. The proper way to salvage your question is to edit it and fix the problems. The question can then be re-opened. – user11249 Jun 9 '17 at 2:30
  • I understand, and I will refrain from doing it in the future. However, I have to point out that there was such a fast action to close the question, and no response to the edits made almost immediately following any comments. This goes part and parcel with my question here. – PV22 Jun 9 '17 at 2:45
  • 5
    The very purpose of closing a question(as opposed to deleting it) is so that you may have the opportunity to improve it. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Jun 9 '17 at 4:00
  • For some strange reason no one pointed this out in their answers, but questions aren't "closed", they're "put on hold". This verbiage isn't an accident, as it implies that a question can "continue" in the future. – user11249 Jun 11 '17 at 4:58

General principles

rather than having any chance to improve my question, it is closed.

Closing is a chance to improve your question before it is answered. Once a question is answered, your ability to change it goes down as edits can invalidate existing answers. So the proper procedure is to close the question first, to prevent answers. When edits occur, it goes into the review queue.

Specific question

You currently have one closed question.

Title: Is it suitable that the US intelligence community can reject answering questions posed in congressional hearings?

Final question: Are the various intelligence agencies protected from politically embroiled issues, where they have direct information regarding the actions of a person or "office"?

That's two separate questions, addressing two separate issues. That's problematically broad in and of itself.

The first asks if it is suitable for the intelligence community to refuse to answer questions in general. Suitable to whom? Under what standard? That's broad because people can define their own standards under which to answer and then use different evidence.

The second asks if the intelligence agencies are protected from politically embroiled issues. Like what? Presumably there was an actual question that was refused, but you don't include that. We could either go look that up for ourselves or do the easy thing and close the question as unclear. Some also argue that this is off-topic, as it is a legal question.

From a comment:

None of these reasons were cited, so why would they apply?

At the time of the comment to which this was replying, there was no indication of what prompted this other than a link to a video and suggestions for two sections to watch. Now there are some exchanges quoted, but these exchanges don't tell us what question was refused nor how it was refused.

As best I can see, the quoted exchanges are nothing more than grandstanding. You're not answering the question? You're really not answering the question? I think you should answer the question! They don't contribute anything to your question, as there is no serious attempt to explain what their question or response was.

You are asking a general question, but you seem to be looking for an answer to something specific. That may be clear in your head, but it's not in ours.

After you edited this question, it went into the review queue. Three out of three reviewers voted not to reopen it.

Some examples of problems listed that you did not fix with your edits:

  1. You ask different questions in the title and body, making it difficult to determine what you want to know.

  2. Your question does not clearly specify what you want to know. What specific question do you feel should have been answered? What was unclear about the reason why it was refused?

| |
  • Thank you for the input and the explanation of the review queue. – PV22 Jun 9 '17 at 3:49

The rate at which a question may be closed is directly proportional to the likelihood a sufficient number of individuals with the privileges to vote for closure are on the website, with at least five, or one moderator, finding the question to be a departure from the SE guidelines.

It is desirable that bad questions are closed fast, to prevent bad answers. The existence of the later is not in keeping with the intentions of the SE model: gather substantive questions, and real useful answers, and archive the lot.

Once a bad question has been closed, changes should take place to get it within the SE guidelines, rebuilding or identifying the strong quality question that exists therein.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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