Should we encourage people to just ask questions on main rather than asking about topicality on Meta?

Question

It's drummed into anyone on Stack Exchange if you've been here long enough. Something along the lines of:

If you've never used a site before, check the site's scope on the help page and ask on meta if you're unsure before posting a question.

Right now we don't really have content that's useful on our help pages (something we should work on) and we're still really determining our scope - that's what the beta period is for (among other things). One of the best ways of determining scope is to post questions and see what the community thinks of them - do they get closed or do they stay open.

As such, at our current state of being only two months into existence, how should we address questions that ask about whether a subject or area of questioning is on topic or not?

Some examples:

• Is a question asking how to phrase an introductory message on a dating website on-topic?
• Are there some topics that are too sensitive to discuss on the main site?
• Is this question on-topic for this site?

These questions so far haven't been asked with great regularity but they do get asked and, often, not really answered. What should we do when these questions are asked here?

For the purpose of this discussion, we're talking only about questions that have not yet been asked on the main site. Someone asking "why was my question closed" is not what I'm asking about here. (yes, I know that the last example was asked on the site but it was asked after the meta post was made).

Answer 1

I'm a mod at Literature, and one of the things we struggled with is that early on in the site's history, people had a very narrow conception of what types of questions could successfully be asked and answered. People were writing all sorts of posts on meta, and writing all sorts of messages in chat, arguing about what sorts of questions should be on-topic or off-topic. And people, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, came to the conclusion that various sorts of questions should be off-topic.

Then of course, people asked those "off-topic" questions (remember: no one reads meta), and it turned out that they could be answered successfully and that they had a place on the site.

Questions are closed because they can not or should not be answered. The interface for closing questions gives five reasons for closing questions: a question is a duplicate, a question is opinion based, a question is off-topic, a question is unclear, and a question is too broad.

These close reasons were not chosen arbitrarily. Rather, the history of Stack Exchange is in part a history of learning what questions work, what questions do not, and modifying the close reasons accordingly. These close reasons were chosen because the Stack Exchange community learned, through experience, that these questions would not work.

You could have some conversations on meta and arbitrarily, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, determine that entire classes of questions should be off-topic. Of course, only a small percentage of people who use the main site read meta, so you'll be excluding a huge portion of the membership from the decision process. And you'll run the risk that maybe some of the questions you exclude are actually great questions.

The other option is to actually ask the questions and see how they work in practice. If they don't work, well, you have close votes and should know how to use them. And when you do make a policy about closing questions, you'll have the advantage of knowing that it's the right policy, because you have data to back it up. And if they do work, then congratulations, you added another great question to the site. And because closing questions is a main site feature, you won't be excluding everyone who doesn't visit meta from the decision process.

I personally prefer the second process. But eh, it doesn't really matter in the end. If you go with the first process and write a bunch of meta posts, those questions will still be asked again, because no one reads meta. But then you'll have to go through the process of closing the question, and maybe some people, on seeing an example, will change their mind, and other people who haven't read the meta post might disagree with said meta post. So then it will turn out that the meta post is useless and doesn't actually reflect what happens on the site, and you'll have to write a new meta post to reflect the new consensus, and you'll find yourself wondering why you went through all the trouble of writing the old meta post that wasn't even based on any sort of evidence.

The moral here is: don't waste your time writing meta posts about hypotheticals. Have actual data first.

Answer 2

Yes.

And then discuss them and edit them.

Gentle reminder that the most-used reference for what is on-topic here are the questions that folks encounter on the site: what they find in Google, in the Hot Network Questions list, in scanning the homepage.

If folks mostly see questions that represent topics they want to ask about, they'll ask more of them. So if those aren't topics (or styles of asking) that y'all want, get rid of them. If you're not sure, the only way to know is to try it & see...

Answer 3

This site is young and has only a few hundred questions. Conversations about scope do better when there's some actual data or at least experience to work with, so being able to see how actual questions in that area actually progressed is useful. Therefore, usually we should encourage people to just ask.

That said, there are a few cases where I've found meta discussions about scope to be helpful:

• After a few questions in that area have been asked, as a way of refining (or ruling out) a particular area. Questions in this category might be "is X on-topic" but usually end up being about boundaries -- X is ok if the question does A and B but not if it does C, etc. On The Workplace, law-related questions have gotten this treatment -- we don't do legal advice and we can't interpret your company's policies, but questions about the law, if they are things that we would reasonably expect an HR person to know, are ok, as are questions that involve applying the law.

• As an analysis of a single question. These might take the form "how can we make this question fit" or "why is this question closed" or, sometimes, "why was question X closed when question Y is open". While the meta question is about a particular (main) question, sometimes it also ends up being about scope definition.

• Before asking a question that would require a lot of effort to ask. For example, a properly-asked question on topic X might require a lot of explanation, or bringing relevant sources, or investigating the situation further to verify key facts. I once asked an "is X on-topic here?" question because I knew somebody else who would be interested in participating if so; I myself did not have that type of question.

We should encourage people to just ask. We should help askers if they ask for help, including on meta.

Both meta and chat are good ways to get help formulating a question before posting on main and attracting answers (that would then make editing harder). I've seen successful meta posts asking for help refining a question, and I've also seen chat be used for this. I think it's way premature to create a sandbox here, but that doesn't mean meta and chat can't be used for sandboxing.

Bottom line: if you're ready to ask the question (but just don't know how it fits site scope), ask it on main so we can use it to help answer that scope question. If you want help formulating a question, ask for help on meta (or in chat). If scope discussions do happen on meta, that's ok too.

Answer 4

A question sandbox will mostly solve this problem.

Regardless of how well defined our scope is, or what our help pages say, users are still going to come to meta with a "how do I ask this question?" Or "can I ask this question?"

Now we can tell them they're not allowed to do that and they'll do it anyway...

Or we can make a space for it, where users can get a little feedback before dumping it on the main site. A sandbox seems like a win win situation. New users get some guidance, and we divert some of the noise and closures.

Answer 5

No, I do not think we should encourage users to "just ask" on the main site when they are unsure if it is on topic. I think asking in meta before hand is a good habit to instill in users.

At this time we are still refining what actually is in topic. Asking the question on the main site first usually won't cause any issues. The same is true on an established site as well. Where it can differ for a new site is when the active users have not considered the subject area well yet. Then it is possible for a question to get rapid up votes and rapid close votes. This leaves the OP in confusion and does not help define the site scope.

If the questions are proposed in Meta first, the active users can be addressing the topicallity of the question rather than the question itself. Up and down votes are now obviously connected to the yes and no of the topic without the vote-worthiness of the question getting into the mix. On Meta the topic can be discussed relative to the site scope without confusing the OP on whether or not the question, as asked, is too broad, too opinion-based, or just poorly worded, etc.

On Meta the active users, and the OP if so inclined, can debate the subject area, and maybe help the OP refine, or refocus, the question to better determine its 'subject' and find a way to make it for the scope when, as written, it wouldn't.

In addition, urging users to skip that step now will set a precedent, and a habit, which will be hard to reverse when the site does have a well defined scope. Stick to the guidelines now, when they may not be needed, and they will be easier to follow, and enforce, once they are needed.