8

I am referring to this question asked earlier today:

I know that generally these kind of questions tend to get VTC's, because they seldom are answerable, but in this specific example, I had seen scenes from the movie, so I recognized it and answered it. So, it was answerable.

The closing reason was:

"Identification questions must contain sufficient detail to be answerable and should not be about a commercial or music video. For help writing a good identification question, see: Identify-This-X Questions."

But as explained above, it was answerable.

Should this question stay closed?

  • I really wish we'd change that word there already... [Though not sure yet to what: 'acceptable'? 'up to standard'? 'considered high quality'? 'less of a heacache to everyone involved'? ;)] – Walt Dec 18 '15 at 10:24
  • 1
  • BTW, I VTC'd that question because it's still my understanding that pic-only ID is off-topic. Then again, they at least said it was an Asian show, so I may have been wrong about that. – Walt Dec 18 '15 at 10:25
  • 3
    Granted, "answerable" might not be the best choice, since crap stays crap even if it has an answer. It's much more about effort. But as Walt alludes to, it's hard to find an alternative phrasing. But yes, it should stay closed. – Napoleon Wilson Dec 18 '15 at 10:25
  • 2
    I agree with that; it's a really low quality question, but the wording in the closing reason does seem kinda wrong – Shevliaskovic Dec 18 '15 at 10:26
  • @Shevliaskovic i do agree on that, will look into it later. – Ankit Sharma Dec 18 '15 at 12:42
  • The question does not contain any detail, or explanation at all (Asian show) but it was answerable because it had an image directly taken from the movie. An image, as they say, is worth a thousand words, because it can really jog someone's memory. – Mari-Lou A Dec 31 '15 at 17:55
  • 3
    The close reason text has been adapted according to the consensus presented in the answers. – Napoleon Wilson Jan 4 '16 at 14:05
6

Echoing my comment, having the word "answerable" in the close reason is misleading and wrong-headed. It forces users to vote to close questions as 'unanswerable' when they're answerable (or even after they've been answered!).

I propose we reword the VTC reason to the following:

"This identification question does not contain sufficient detail to meet the site's quality standards or is about a commercial or music video. For help writing a good identification question, see: Identify-This-X Questions."

  • Hmm. Some explanation for the downvotes might be nice. – user7812 Dec 23 '15 at 18:05
  • Well, Meta DVs usually just mean 'I disagree', I guess. [Which is a shame, because I support either of these suggestions.] – Walt Dec 25 '15 at 21:21
  • @Walt - yes, but if people disagree, it would be nice to know why they disagree. – user7812 Dec 25 '15 at 21:22
  • Sure, or come up with alternative suggestions. I'd love to see some more. – Walt Dec 25 '15 at 21:23
  • 1
    @Walt - Part of the problem seems to be a lack of interest in doing anything about it. The post has been up a week (a holiday week, no less) and garnered precisely 4 votes. Heck, no-one even answered it for 4 days. – user7812 Dec 25 '15 at 21:26
  • 1
    Welcome to M&TV Meta. :( – Walt Dec 25 '15 at 21:26
  • @Walt - More traffic would help. – user7812 Dec 25 '15 at 21:29
  • @Walt - Well, it seems that we've come to an overwhelming concensus on this one. – user7812 Dec 29 '15 at 12:49
  • At least give Napoleon's answer a chance, it's half way there. ;) – Walt Dec 29 '15 at 17:56
  • @Walt - I may have spoken too soon :-) – user7812 Dec 29 '15 at 18:46
  • @Walt Since both answers propose exactly the same, there's not one winning over the other anyway. I'd wager people downvoting those answers simply disagree with rewording the close-reason (and maybe would rather see the question open when "answerable"?). – Napoleon Wilson Jan 7 '16 at 13:17
  • Meh. 6+/2- is hardly conclusive, but since no-one else has weighed in... – user7812 Jan 7 '16 at 13:20
  • @Richard Well, it's +4. That is probably as conclusive as you're gonna get on Movies & TV Meta nowadays. – Napoleon Wilson Jan 9 '16 at 16:36
2

Now first of all, that close reason is much more about details and effort than about mere answerability. So no, an answer alone does not absolve a bad identification question from closability right away, especially when the existance of an answer usually keeps the question from improving ever. So yes, that question likely should stay closed, or at least should not be reopened solely for the reason that it has an answer.

However, I agree that the word "answerable" might not be the best choice in this case. But finding another fitting word isn't that easy either. "Verifyable" might be an option, but it might as well fall into the same pitfalls that "answerable" does.

But seeing how the actual close-reason is significantly softer than what "answerable" might imply, one could as well go into the direction that Richard's answer does and use a softer term as well. I'd thus support the idea of "does not meet the site's standards" as proposed by Richard, which properly adapted to the format of all the existing close-reasons would read:

Identification questions must contain sufficient detail to meet the site's quality standards and should not be about a commercial or music video. For help writing a good identification question, see: Identify-This-X Questions.

  • I think we should go with it, as there is no change from days . And we do need a conclusion. – Ankit Sharma Jan 4 '16 at 7:30
  • 2
    @AnkitSharma Indeed. – Napoleon Wilson Jan 4 '16 at 13:29

You must log in to answer this question.

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