Over-moderation and building a userbase

Question

I believe that this SE may be slightly over-moderated. By that I mean, the moderators are acting too often. I see many people come on the site, ask an interesting (if broad or poorly worded question), get it closed or severely edited, and then never post again. I think that the posts on this forum need to be high quality, but when that happens to a new poster it is most likely going to drive them away.

Comments with polite suggestions for edits should be the primary course of action. New posters probably don't understand the format very well. Closing their thread over such a technicality is like slamming the door in their face. A polite suggestion on how to better phrase the question helps them learn what this place is about, without rejecting them.

Edits on a question should also be very tightly controlled. Fixing grammar, changing formatting, etc... are all helpful and appreciated. But to change the content at all is fairly invasive and presumptuous. It's much better to let the original poster modify their question. First of all because they learn what makes a good question. Second, they are the ones who know what they're trying to find out.

Closing a thread, and even casting a downvote, should be reserved for the rarer instance when a question is truly out of line with what the community is about. Especially at this early stage, it's too easy to over-moderate.

I don't mean to accuse anyone, I think for the most part everyone does an excellent job. Rather, I just think the topic should be brought up, considered, and discussed.

Answer 1

I see many people come on the site, ask an interesting (if broad or poorly worded question), get it closed ...

It's SE policy to close questions like this as quick as possible. Normally for sites with a larger user base the users do that themselves by casting close votes. We don't have the luxury of many users who can close to vote yet, so it's the duty of moderators to help that process along a bit. If we feel the close votes/down votes are justified we should close the question.

Asking a question is a privilege. Leaving a question open for interpretation or having a question which requires an entire book as an answer isn't fair to the people who answer it. If it's not clear what the OP is after, the question is closed until it is improved. How to improve a question is clearly outlined in the FAQ which is referred to when a question gets closed. Ideally we also leave behind comments with a more detailed description of what is particularly wrong with a question.

Notwithstanding, the close message can be a bit confronting. I posted a feature request on Meta earlier, asking for it to be a bit friendlier. They implemented part of it, which I feel is already a great improvement.

... get it closed or severely edited, and then never post again.

Severe edits are usually done in line with the FAQ. When doing this we have to leave behind a comment explaining why the edit was done, and clearly point out the user is still allowed to roll back. Edits aren't permanent. Severely editing a question is actually already beyond the scope of what a moderator should be doing, but can be really helpful in those cases where users don't fully understand why their question was closed. If anything, we are only trying to be helpful by doing some extra effort.

I believe that this SE may be slightly over-moderated.

As a final point I'd like to point out that ideally we don't have to intervene. It's up to the community to vote which questions should be closed and which ones should be reopened. Leave behind constructive comments, and help out new users. Make them feel welcome! However, we have to keep in mind what Stack Exchange is about. We should decide which questions are allowed here and which aren't. The best place to do this is by participating here on meta.

Thank you for taking the time to raise your concerns. I would love to be pointed to the particular questions/answers where you feel we acted too soon or unjustly, and how it could have been handled in a better way.

Answer 2

Ok, I'm prepared to get seriously downvoted myself now, but do we really want everybody to feel welcome here? That is, shouldn't some members be chased away, not because they are bad people who deserves to not have their questions answered, but because they contribute with lousy questions, that only clog up the board.

That is, if I for example would go to math.stackexchange.com and ask how the square root is computed, or asking if my one line proof of Fermat's last theorem was correct, the community would be wise to actaully discourage me to post again (encouraging me to improve my questions would be a waste of time). Shouldn't we chase at least some subset of the member base away to raise the overall quality of questions and answers? Or how do we deal with posters that obviously aren't suited to be here?