Proposed change to Server Fault guidelines, round 2

Question

I'd like to propose some changes to the guidelines in our help center on what questions are on topic.

The goals of this change are:

• Alter the language to focus on the question being asked as opposed to the person asking the question.
• Clarify some of the wording to be clearer to the target audience what kinds of questions are permitted.

Mainly, what I'm hoping comes of this is a small change in the community's approach to handling questions, so that we're a little more approachable and give a better first impression to potential contributors - we need people getting involved and contributing who aren't already experts, which will help spread the current load of community moderation.

(This is a new post of the current version of the draft here so we can get feedback for the current iteration that's been much improved due to the discussion there. Those interested can see the full background discussion here.)

---

Here's the current draft:

Server Fault is for questions about managing information technology systems in a business environment.

If your question is about:

• managing the hardware or software of servers, workstations, storage or networks
• tools used for administering, monitoring, or automating these
• deployment to and management of third-party provided information technology platforms

and is not about:

• consumer workstations or networking (which belong on our sister site, Super User)
• working with a service provider's management interface, such as cPanel
• product, service, or learning material recommendations
• product licensing inquiries or legal advice
• career, salary, personnel, employment, or formal education
• unauthorized use or misuse of IT systems

then you’re in the right place to ask your question!

(then leaving the rest of the content of the page alone)

---

For replacing the "not professional" close reason and covering a gap that we'd end up with after removing it:

"Questions should demonstrate reasonable information technology management practices. Questions that relate to unsupported hardware or software platforms or unmaintained environments may not be suitable for Server Fault"

This doesn't perfectly capture what we need here, because questions about fixing a busted or old environment are on-topic, but we don't need perfect verbal coverage of every condition (which will make things way too wordy).

Answer 1

I believe that the issue about professionalism is just as much reflected in the presentation of the question as it is the content of the question. New users are going to write their issue in the box and never click the link tucked away on the right side pointing towards "visit the help center" or "asking help". Why? Because you click on links related to the word "help" when you don't understand what you're doing. Posting the question itself is fairly straightforward.

How about perhaps a condensed version of the excellent Better Question Checklist more prominently on the actual Ask a Question page. Not a link, but the content itself. Five bullet points with concise advise on how to get an actual, serious answer.

Answer 2

Suggestion: Add a statement that we give people the benefit of the doubt... if the question gives no hint as to whether it is in a business environment or not, but seems like it could be, assume it is appropriate.

For example, someone recently asked a question about copying millions of small files over a network using rsync. The question was brief and while I could have assumed they were copying their personal MP3 collection, instead I assumed this was business data. The rationale for my decision was that if someone else came along with a business-related issue that was similar, the answer provided would have helped them.

Answer 3

One big flaw is that there's now no generic "off-topic" close reason.

There are tons of crappy questions that are arguably on-topic somewhere else but you're not supposed to migrate crap. The generic "not related to professional sys admin" close reason was perfect for them - close in place, w/out fobbing them off on SU or UL (and then possibly having them bounce back 'cause they're crappy.)

Of the 10 close vote reviews, the old generic "not related to professional sys admin" would've been my choice for at least 1/2 of them. The new wording doesn't fit, but I still picked it as being the closest.

(And no, I am not writing custom close reasons... for the amount that I close vote, that's not feasible.)

Update 1 day later (Merry Christmas!) - It looks to me like this is going to be a problem: of the 10 close votes I just reviewed, 7 of them had "migrate to another site" showing, and at least 5 of them were crappy questions. I'm certainly willing to wait and see how the actual stats turn out, but it looks like a lot more crappy questions are going to be closed and migrated to other sites with the generic close reason gone.

Answer 4

These changes have been implemented, but they're not set in stone by any means - if anyone has recommendations to improve, please speak up!