5
$\begingroup$

We have to decide what should be our custom close reasons. We can have 3 custom close reasons. Each can be up to 400 characters.

The default format of a close reason as follows:

Questions about X are off-topic because Y. For more information, see [Z](link to meta post).

I am adding a few possible reasons below as answers. Please up-vote those which you think we should have. If you don't like the phrasing of a close reason please comment below its answer to make suggestion on how it can be improved.

Fill free to post other possible custom closing reasons. Keep in mind that we can have only 3 custom closing reasons, so should optimize to cover the frequently used clsoing reasons.


SE has changed the closing reasons and mechanism. Each site can have its own costum off-topic closing reasons. See The War of the Closes on SE blog.

Reference:

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It might be worth providing some guidance for how to handle questions that previously would have been closed as too localized. These are infrequent and typically drive-by questions about some problem in understanding a definition or result, but the OP doesn't provide enough detail for others to be able to connect to it, or relies on the reader having a copy of the same textbook in front of them. If such questions do not get closed, the net result would be more downvoted and unanswered questions of little use to anyone. $\endgroup$ – András Salamon Jun 22 '13 at 13:29
  • $\begingroup$ @András, we can have a close reason that explains that the question is too much case specific and ask the OP to generalize the question such that it will interesting/useful also for others. What do you think? $\endgroup$ – Kaveh Jun 22 '13 at 21:28
  • $\begingroup$ Sounds reasonable, but then we are just reinstating one of the current reasons? $\endgroup$ – András Salamon Jun 22 '13 at 21:43
  • $\begingroup$ @András, I think the reason they are removing it is people have different understanding of what it means for a question to be too-localized and misuse it. We haven't had such problems on cstheory as far as I know. I think with some clarification of the meaning we can use a similar close reason where we can ask the user to generalize the question and abstract out the unnecessary details. $\endgroup$ – Kaveh Jun 22 '13 at 21:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Other possible close reasons: 1. when a question is not self-contained. 2. when the question is not motivated. 3. when OP haven't done their homework and haven't tried to answer the question themselves (e.g. haven't checked Wikipedia, Complexity Zoo, ...). $\endgroup$ – Kaveh Jun 22 '13 at 21:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 4. the question is simultaneously cross-posted. $\endgroup$ – Kaveh Jun 22 '13 at 22:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 5. "Questions must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved. Tell us what you've tried to do, why it didn't work, and how it should work. See also: our question checklist." (copied from SO) Here is the list of close reasons for SO: meta.stackexchange.com/q/185142 $\endgroup$ – Kaveh Jun 26 '13 at 18:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Questions are "on hold" instead of "closed" for the first week, but the action to take a question "off hold" is still called "reopen". Okay, then. $\endgroup$ – Jeffε Jun 26 '13 at 19:44
9
$\begingroup$

Not research-level:

Your question does not appear to be a research-level question in theoretical computer science. For more information about the scope, please see [help/on-topic]. Your question might be suitable for [cs.se] which has a broader scope.

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Might it be worth mentioning CS.SE in the writeup about this close-reason? $\endgroup$ – jmite Jul 4 '13 at 22:11
5
$\begingroup$

Simultaneous crossposting:

Our site policy prohibits simultaneous crossposting: it duplicates effort and fractures discussion. Crossposting is permitted after a week has passed without a satisfying answer elsewhere. When crossposting please summarize the relevant discussions from other sites in your question and link between the copies in both directions.

$ $

Our [site policy](https://cstheory.meta.stackexchange.com/a/231/) prohibits ***simultaneous*** **crossposting**: it duplicates effort and fractures discussion. Crossposting is permitted after a week has passed without a satisfying answer elsewhere. When crossposting please summarize the relevant discussions from other sites in your question and link between the copies in both directions.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Not enough effort

Doesn't know the basics definitions/results, hasn't tried to answer the oneself, the answer can be found on Wikipedia/Complexity Zoo/... or by a simple Google search.

Questions must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved. Tell us what you've tried to do, why it didn't work, and how it should work. See also our question checklist.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Not a preprints discussion forum:

Questions about the general correctness of unpublished preprints and solutions of major open problems are off-topic. For more information, see our policy for questions about preprints.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

The question is OK in principle but the statement in the post has problems

Possible problems:

  1. formating issues,
  2. hard to read/understand,
  3. lack of motivation,
  4. needs to be restated in a more mathematical/theoretical computer scientific language,
  5. etc.

?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Not theoretical computer science:

Questions does not appear to be a research-level question in theoretical computer science. For more information, please see scope.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Not research-level

Your question does not appear to be a research-level question in theoretical computer science. Questions at the level of undergraduate textbooks or assignments are typically off-topic on [cstheory.se]. For more information about our scope, please see [help/on-topic]. Your question might be suitable for [cs.se] which has a broader scope.

$\endgroup$
-2
$\begingroup$

Default off-topic closing reason

This is used as default, when other reasons are not used.

Right now it reads:

This question does not appear to be a research-level question in theoretical computer science. For more information, please see scope.

Since it is the default, I think we should edit it to be broader. Something like:

As posted this question is not suitable for cstheory. For more information about why it is closed please refer to help center.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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