5
$\begingroup$

This question has been closed with the reason: "This question needs details or clarity"
I had already replied in the comments some clarifications. It is not clear to me though what further clarification or detail I should provide.

Should I simply edit the question adding the detail asked by @zackit? I had already bolded the question to make it stand out before it was closed.
How can I understand what else is needed?

Here @halfthawed provides an explanation for this reason to close:

Needs details or clarity.
Your question isn't clear because of the words itself in it. As it's written, we have no clue what you're asking. Possibly because your question makes perfect grammatical sense but is nonsensical from a physics standpoint or contains multiple contradiction to the point where the question isn't possible to give an answer to. Or maybe just because we can't make it through your terrible grammar, I've seen both.

I don't see that problem in my question but maybe I'm biased? I have already bolded the question that is asking if the system would work. Also specified the reality-check tag that asks for a yes / no answer. Would really help to have those who vote to close with the reason of adding detail or clarity to specify on what more detail is needed.

I also read this thread. Am willing to edit my question but need some pointers about it.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I took a glimpse at your question, thought that the clarity (the visual one, so I guess it's irrelevant to the Votes to close ^^) could be improved so I edited it. I bet you know it already, but... to create nicer-to-look paragraphs, you can press enter and leave a blank between the two texts in the editor :). $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Mar 5, 2021 at 12:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Tortliena thank you. Hopefully during the weekend some hints will come. $\endgroup$ Mar 5, 2021 at 18:02

2 Answers 2

7
$\begingroup$

Two thoughts here, in general, but applicable to the OP's situation:

  1. for the Close Voters in ány question whatsoever: please give a reason! You're not helping a querent by voting to close a question without justifying your action. Your action may (or may not!) be correct, but that can't be judged and the querent can't improve her question if she doesn't know what's wrong to begin with.

  2. for the Querent: it's fine to engage in limited discussion in comment when someone asks for clarification. But remember that the comments are not actually part of one's question. Apart from the people actively engaging with a querent, I suspect that most people don't really read the comments. It is always best practice to edit one's query with any clarifications, typographical edits, stylistic edits or any other matter that people have requested be modified.

  3. Since you asked about this, in comments to the other answer, rather than in your question, I'll address the point here: I think the best practice, when asked for clarification, is to always rewrite. Don't leave behind what was unclear, because that will simply make your revised query all the less clear! We can always see the revision history if we need to. The whole point of SE is for you to write the best question you can. After all, our answers are not just for you! Queries and Responses here also serve as an archive or repository of geopoetical wisdom and worldbuilding advice. While it's a goal to help you with your specific issue, it's also our job to make this forum a valuable resource for present and future worldbuilders that we may never meet.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I can never stress enough point 2), especially when the OP says "I had already replied in the comments some clarifications.". Whatever is put in comment is written on water. $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch Mod
    Mar 11, 2021 at 6:12
  • $\begingroup$ @L.Dutch-ReinstateMonica --- And once you come along and sweep it into the Uttermost Void of Chat, what the OP "answered" in comments may as well never have been written at all! ;))) $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Mar 11, 2021 at 22:11
3
$\begingroup$

A vote to close for lack of details or clarity should itself be vulnerable to be closed for lack of details or clarity.

In the vote cited here, I thought it was an entertaining question - certainly not unclear - and submitted an answer. It turned out, however, that the question had allegedly misrepresented an ancient Roman tradition with which I'm unfamiliar.

The question should be reopened, but it should also be fixed to avoid premising any historical inaccuracy. Give us another term to use, so we can fix our answers, so that we don't sound like we're ignorant of obscure Ancient Roman history.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the suggestion. Is editing best done by completely erasiong the previous text of the question or should i just leave it (maybe witha a strikethrough style?) followed by the addition of details / clarification? $\endgroup$ Mar 7, 2021 at 1:05
  • $\begingroup$ There may be some procedure here I don't know about, but what seems most sensible to me is to revise and then have a postscript explaining the revision very briefly (so readers don't wonder where "clientes" came from if you use a different term now) $\endgroup$ Mar 7, 2021 at 1:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The close-voting system does not seem to work that well here for reasons I don't fully understand. It seems quite easy for a question to be closed, and quite hard to get it reopened again. The mechanism seems to work OK on other sites where the subject focus is tighter and/or there are more active users with sufficient privileges and diverse opinions, but it has always seemed a bit of a poor fit on WB. $\endgroup$ Mar 8, 2021 at 11:47
  • $\begingroup$ @DuncanDrake --- See section 3 in my answer, which addresses your concern here. $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Mar 11, 2021 at 22:18
  • $\begingroup$ @elemtilas thank you for your suggestions. My concern is also that the edit may invalidate some of the answers. It becomes a narrow path... $\endgroup$ Mar 12, 2021 at 18:27
  • $\begingroup$ @DuncanDrake --- That's a thing. You'd have to do some careful editing. This is also one reason why it's very important for respondents to make sure the question actually makes sense before answering. $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Mar 12, 2021 at 19:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8248/closed-question-this-question-needs-details-or-clarity-but-without-explanation
worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-33
127664
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:ZWQUUTA5SHNELPN3C2WEGG2GM7PZT5NB
<urn:uuid:76021d8e-94e6-4f8f-a4fe-715a5055ec61>
2022-08-09T07:28:22Z
151.101.1.69
text/html
sha1:7NL6I2LVSXJ2D6POJELVRZNAAYUTYON2
<urn:uuid:933348b7-b77a-491b-85b3-f5b807870c25>
https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8248/closed-question-this-question-needs-details-or-clarity-but-without-explanation
response
<urn:uuid:9af6b0e5-0615-4a0b-937c-07fe891706d5>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-33
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-103
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-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/