21

Let's say an OP asks:

Why does X produces this result?

An answer is

To make it work, change, etc...

The answer obviously misunderstood the question. The goal is not to correct the original behavior, but to understand it. But it is still an attempt to address the OP's issue.

Is an answer which misunderstood the question like this low-quality and need to be flagged for review? In my opinion, such answers need to be downvoted with a comment, not flagged for deletion.

Some examples:

6
  • 2
    Things like this are nearly always evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Your example specifically can be handled by voting, allowing a direct A to the Q to raise up. The answer (as per your example) could remain but not as highly voted as it might be helpful to others who actually want the fix. Again, case-by-case, as perhaps there is no fix at all, and the user simply asking about how something works - why X makes Y value do Z.
    – James
    Oct 6, 2014 at 15:06
  • 1
    I'd agree. Flag posts that are harmful, down vote ones that are wrong.
    – Sobrique
    Oct 6, 2014 at 17:05
  • 2
    You need to distinguish between low quality and wrong, though we do have cases when both attributes apply. If it's clear and unambiguous what the answer says it's not low quality.
    – PM 77-1
    Oct 6, 2014 at 17:44
  • 2
    I don't think those are good examples. The first one is very low quality in and of itself, regardless of the question; to apply Andrew's criteria, it is incomprehensible. The second one is a sound answer to the question (essentially equivalent to the accepted answer) so the only problem is that it is not expressed well. I would neither downvote nor vote to close. Oct 6, 2014 at 19:39
  • The first example is definitely low quality, possibly in addition to being wrong. How can you tell? "Because!"
    – Ben Voigt
    Oct 6, 2014 at 21:32
  • 2
    It needs to be pointed out that by common convention, "why is this broken" is sometimes pragmatically equivalent to "how do I fix it?"
    – tripleee
    Oct 9, 2014 at 4:43

1 Answer 1

36

"Low Quality" is a very over-used flag, in my opinion. It basically should be for things that are simply incomprehensible and can't possibly be fixed. It is basically, "this thing just sucks so much, it should be wiped out. Right now. Please. Thank you."

Except that it should not be for spam, offensive, or "Not an Answer"; there are other flags for those things.

Also, the type of thing you note would not be appropriate for "Not an Answer", either. The key there being from the NAA text: "...an attempt to answer the question." That sort of thing is an attempt; bad, wrong, misguided though it may be.


All of which is to say; I believe you are correct. Down vote, comment (or ignore), but not flag.

8
  • 9
    "Low Quality" is a very over-used flag - Yes, yes it is. And it is consistently used wrong.
    – Taryn
    Oct 6, 2014 at 12:50
  • 7
    Maybe it would be useful to see some examples of properly flagged VLQ posts. Oct 6, 2014 at 13:18
  • 4
    Not to mention low quality and very low quality are different flags. Oct 6, 2014 at 13:21
  • 2
    I agree with this answer. However, the close reasons are not entirely clear as to which to use where. I know this point has been bashed to death, but it still stands that newer users, or those who do not frequent Metas, cannot logically or easily ascertain which close method to use. "Low quality" is very contextual in itself, both your answer and this question use the words "In my opinion...". The problem is amplified given that there are numerous potential scenarios where suitability of the different close methods can be (and has been) open to interpretation.
    – James
    Oct 6, 2014 at 15:13
  • @James I don't disagree. That's actually why I stated it as my opinion, in fact. ;) Oct 6, 2014 at 16:11
  • @chris Did you mean answers, rather than suggested edits? I don't know about editing these answers; they wouldn't be good enough to fix. It'd be better to post your own answer. Oct 7, 2014 at 16:33
  • Just for clarification: Such low quality answers should be edited (typos, noise, etc.) and down-voted, but not deleted? Oct 7, 2014 at 16:36
  • That's what I figured, @Chris. My comment was based on that assumption :) Oct 7, 2014 at 16:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/272925/are-answers-which-misunderstood-the-question-low-quality
meta.stackoverflow.com
CC-MAIN-2024-18
123802
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:GZOEN2EJFSG4PPD4TMABXA3G6OZBDLFU
<urn:uuid:bcec5cf3-14a6-422f-a4cc-d54891984eb5>
2024-04-16T15:24:11Z
172.64.155.249
text/html
sha1:2BJ5RMCMPZ3LLANGKXABSCREXDFNHYMM
<urn:uuid:f48edf2c-680a-4cb3-9411-29f9f1868d68>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/272925/are-answers-which-misunderstood-the-question-low-quality
response
<urn:uuid:3027a6ce-65f8-4e3f-9490-51b050d8b938>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-18
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for April 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-118
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/