Skip to main content
Server Fault

Return to Question

replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

I saw this question closedthis question closed as Not A Real Question (NARQ). What I want to discuss is not this closure in particular, but rather the act of closing a question as NARQ when it already has an answer.

NARQ questions are one or more of the following:

  • ambiguous
  • vague
  • incomplete
  • overly broad
  • rhetorical
  • cannot be reasonably answered in its current form.

This got me thinking. If a question has a (good) answer, then it:

  • Can obviously be answered in its current form (because it has been)
  • Can't be too ambiguous, or there is little enough ambiguity to cover all cases
  • Can't be that vague because someone was able to figure it out
  • Incomplete, possibly, but there was enough there to cover for a single answer, so perhaps it's complete enough
  • Overly broad. If the answer is a good answer on the question, then it obviously wasn't so broad that it can't be tackled in the SE medium
  • Rhetorical questions can still be answered, especially if there is an assumption being made and it's wrong

With these points in mind, should we stop using NARQ closures on questions that have good answers? (Use your own discretion as to what you think is a good answer).

I saw this question closed as Not A Real Question (NARQ). What I want to discuss is not this closure in particular, but rather the act of closing a question as NARQ when it already has an answer.

NARQ questions are one or more of the following:

  • ambiguous
  • vague
  • incomplete
  • overly broad
  • rhetorical
  • cannot be reasonably answered in its current form.

This got me thinking. If a question has a (good) answer, then it:

  • Can obviously be answered in its current form (because it has been)
  • Can't be too ambiguous, or there is little enough ambiguity to cover all cases
  • Can't be that vague because someone was able to figure it out
  • Incomplete, possibly, but there was enough there to cover for a single answer, so perhaps it's complete enough
  • Overly broad. If the answer is a good answer on the question, then it obviously wasn't so broad that it can't be tackled in the SE medium
  • Rhetorical questions can still be answered, especially if there is an assumption being made and it's wrong

With these points in mind, should we stop using NARQ closures on questions that have good answers? (Use your own discretion as to what you think is a good answer).

I saw this question closed as Not A Real Question (NARQ). What I want to discuss is not this closure in particular, but rather the act of closing a question as NARQ when it already has an answer.

NARQ questions are one or more of the following:

  • ambiguous
  • vague
  • incomplete
  • overly broad
  • rhetorical
  • cannot be reasonably answered in its current form.

This got me thinking. If a question has a (good) answer, then it:

  • Can obviously be answered in its current form (because it has been)
  • Can't be too ambiguous, or there is little enough ambiguity to cover all cases
  • Can't be that vague because someone was able to figure it out
  • Incomplete, possibly, but there was enough there to cover for a single answer, so perhaps it's complete enough
  • Overly broad. If the answer is a good answer on the question, then it obviously wasn't so broad that it can't be tackled in the SE medium
  • Rhetorical questions can still be answered, especially if there is an assumption being made and it's wrong

With these points in mind, should we stop using NARQ closures on questions that have good answers? (Use your own discretion as to what you think is a good answer).

Tweeted twitter.com/#!/ServerFault/status/303040475256983552
Source Link
Mark Henderson Mod
Mark Henderson Mod
  • 69.3k
  • 1
  • 32
  • 59

Using "not a real question" as a close reason on questions that have answers

I saw this question closed as Not A Real Question (NARQ). What I want to discuss is not this closure in particular, but rather the act of closing a question as NARQ when it already has an answer.

NARQ questions are one or more of the following:

  • ambiguous
  • vague
  • incomplete
  • overly broad
  • rhetorical
  • cannot be reasonably answered in its current form.

This got me thinking. If a question has a (good) answer, then it:

  • Can obviously be answered in its current form (because it has been)
  • Can't be too ambiguous, or there is little enough ambiguity to cover all cases
  • Can't be that vague because someone was able to figure it out
  • Incomplete, possibly, but there was enough there to cover for a single answer, so perhaps it's complete enough
  • Overly broad. If the answer is a good answer on the question, then it obviously wasn't so broad that it can't be tackled in the SE medium
  • Rhetorical questions can still be answered, especially if there is an assumption being made and it's wrong

With these points in mind, should we stop using NARQ closures on questions that have good answers? (Use your own discretion as to what you think is a good answer).