Please return to using the titles "Too broad" and "Unclear"

Please change the Modal Titles:

• "Needs more focus" back to "Too broad" and
• "Needs details or clarity" back to "Unclear".

The modal titles are the identifiers on which people, particularly people voting/flagging for closure, hang the concepts behind the close reasons. The titles should be very short and clearly distinct. The current model titles for these two close reasons are neither of those things and were changed away from modal titles which were. These modal titles are primarily for people interacting with the close vote/flag modal, not the author of the post. The author of the post has substantially more detailed text presented to them. Even in the modal, these modal titles are not the full concept of the close reason. They should be usable as an identifier into which people place the full concepts of close reason and into which people separate the concepts in the close reason from concepts in other reasons.

The current Modal Titles for these are too similar and introduce substantial confusion. This confusion has been a consistent and continuous problem that has plagued both long time users and new users since the change away from "Too broad" and "Unclear" a couple of years ago. After the change in these titles happened, I quickly lost count of the number of times I've seen people ask "What is the difference between 'Needs more focus' and 'Needs details or clarity'?". I still routinely see that asked, usually with quite a bit of frustration, by new users, users new to flagging/closing for closure, and long time users who haven't been actively voting/flagging for closure. A substantial portion of the confusion is because those two current modal titles are longer and begin with the same word, which short-circuits a lot of what we rely upon to quickly separate concepts.

As Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog pointed out in an edit to this answer, the prior title for "unclear" was actually "unclear what you're asking". I, personally, don't like that wording, because using "you're" in the close-vote/flag modal is a bit confusing to close voters/flaggers (and it's unnecessarily longer), but it would be substantially better than "Needs details or clarity". If something longer than just "unclear" is really desired, then, perhaps, "unclear or needs details". Personally, I feel that "unclear or needs details" is redundant, but it would be notably better than the current modal title.

I'm not saying change the descriptions, just the Modal Titles. Any suggestions I have for other wording changes, if I have any, will be in other answer(s).

Don't use the word "opinionated" in the description for "Opinion-based"

The word "opinionated" does not mean "opinion-based". Instead, it means to be firm, narrow-minded, and arrogant. To quote some dictionaries:

Oxford Dictionary:

conceitedly assertive and dogmatic in one's opinions

Dictionary.com:

obstinate or conceited with regard to the merit of one's own opinions; conceitedly dogmatic

Webster's Dictionary:

firmly or unduly adhering to one's own opinion or to preconceived notions

Vocabulary.com (emphasis added):

obstinate in your opinions

Your opinion is your view, belief, or judgment. If you are opinionated, you obstinately hold on to your opinions, and you don't hesitate to let other people know what those opinions are.

Opinionated is based on the word "opinion," which itself comes from the Latin word opinari, meaning to think. If you and your sister are both extremely opinionated, it must have been hard growing up in the same house — for you and for your parents. Someone who is not at all opinionated can be just as frustrating to live with, though, if their response always seems to be, "I don't care."

[Quiz question] opinionated means: narrow-minded [correct answer]

It is an adjective aimed at the person, not at the discussion itself. I once used this word in a canned comment about subjective questions which called the question "opinionated", and I got two complaints about feeling insulted with that comment. Reading into the actual definition of the word, I can see why calling a question "opinionated" would come across as insulting.

Please do not use the word "opinionated" in the close reason. Replacing it with "subjective" is probably the best thing to do.

This is a bit of a basic request, perhaps too basic, but currently the 'post owner guidance' messages all end with: "If edited, your question will be reviewed and might be reopened." Could that be changed to "If edited, your question will be reviewed by the community and might be reopened."?

It's okay if this doesn't happen, but I remember being a bit perplexed, as a new user, by how exactly the whole 'reopening' thing worked. Did the same people who voted to close have to change their minds? Did reopening have to involve diamond mods? Maybe it's just me, but I think that I'd have appreciated a bit of context/information regarding the mechanics of who exactly would need to be involved in reopening. I assume that other users may have had similar experiences.

On a very related note, there's an inconsistency in the wording of the message, as @Mayken mentioned in a comment: the 'guidance to others' message for 'opinion-based' reads "If edited, the question may be reviewed and might be reopened." The other messages all use 'will' instead of 'may.' They should probably all be changed to match with each other ("...will be reviewed..."), both for consistency and for accuracy, as all posts submitted for review are indeed reviewed.

Please return to using the modal title "Primarily opinion based" instead of "opinion based"

If "primarily" isn't desired, then some alternatives for "primarily" would be various synonyms, such as "largely", "mostly", "predominately", "fundamentally", "essentially", etc.

There's a big difference between questions which are primarily opinion based and ones that have some measure of opinion involved in the answers. Where the line is drawn can vary quite a bit depending on which network site is being considered. However, most, if not all sites, support some level of opinion in answering. Even in hard sciences, for things that are not already highly supported by many studies and/or proof, there's often some level of opinion involved as to which pile of evidence to believe. Obviously, we generally want questions and answers which are not just opinion, but where that line exists is a per-site issue.

Unfortunately, even on Stack Overflow, the change to using just "opinion based" has made a lot of people feel that the extent to which a question can need opinions to answer must be zero or near-zero, which has never been the case. While I think the changes in the detailed post notice text should help both the author and other users looking at the question once it's closed, those changes won't affect how close-voters/flaggers interpret the close reason. I feel that one of the best things that could be done to affect how close-voters/flaggers view the close reason is to return to using an intensifier, such as "primarily", as part of the modal title.

Not sure if this is outside the scope of this round, but I've always struggled with the "migrated from" post notice:

My problem with this is the links. Unlike the "migrated to" notice, the "migrated from" notice has the links in the opposite order. The URL in "was migrated from" points to the FAQ question on meta, while the link in "Migrated [time] ago" points to the original question on the other site. And as I was reminded about in the comments, both the links are on the word "migrated", which doesn't exactly clear up any confusion.

I have no idea how many times I've made this mistake, and I still keep clicking on the FAQ link instead of the source link, because I do it more often with "migrated to" notices where the links are, arguably, more sane. The "migrated to" notice is also consistent with the return notice, where the first link is to the original question, and the "Migrated [time] ago" link is to the FAQ.

This is already included in the question, in both the current and proposed version.

This question was migrated to [$toSiteName$]($destinationUrl$) because it is [out of scope on]($OnTopicUrl$) [$SiteName$] but can be answered by $destinationSiteAudience$.

_{This is the proposed version, but the current version has the links in the same relative positions}

Please consider making the "migrated from" notice links consistent with the "migrated to" notice links. Assuming no other changes to the text, the notice on the migration target could be

This question was migrated from [$fromSiteName$]($sourceUrl$) because it can be answered on [$SiteName$]

It also appears the "Migrated [time] ago" bit isn't part of the template, but the link there has to be changed to point to the FAQ to complete the change.

Example question pair for a demonstration: destination, source, though this does appear on any migrated questions. Feel free to find examples on Your Favorite Site™

Note: I'm only commenting on the link order, and not the content. Whether the text is changed from my example isn't really important to me, as long as the links are placed as sanely as the "migrated to" dialog

This is just a wording tweak proposal for the Opinion-based guidance to viewers.

Your proposed updated text reads

Because this question may lead to opinionated discussion, debate, and answers, it has been closed. You may edit the question if you feel you can improve it so that it requires answers that include facts and citations or a detailed explanation of the proposed solution. If edited, the question will be reviewed and might be reopened.

I think the "and answers" part is weird and potentially hilarious. I'd suggest moving things around a bit.

This question has been closed because in its current form, it may lead to opinion-based answers, discussion, or debate. You may edit the question if you feel you can improve it so that it encourages answers that are based on facts and citations or a detailed explanation of the proposed solution. If edited, the question will be reviewed by the community, and might be reopened.

The first sentence also changes "opinionated" to "opinion-based" in response to Sonic's suggestion.

The middle sentence is also modified slightly for what I perceive to be improved flow.

In the last sentence, I also added the "by the community" phrase suggested by CDR in their answer.

Please mention "Too broad" before "asking multiple questions"

Regardless of whether or not you go back to using "Too broad" instead of "Needs focus" in the title, I think mentioning "too broad" before "asking multiple questions" in the description and guidance is critical (at the very least in the post owner guidance).

Many new users don't actually read the whole thing and as soon as they see "asking multiple questions", they become defensive and reply (in comments, ranting on meta, etc.) with "BUT I DID NOT ASK MULTIPLE QUESTIONS!!!"

Flesh out the modal description for migration, specifically as to what makes a question 'complete.' Right now, the description reads:

This question is out of scope on this site but is on topic on another site in the Stack Exchange network and should be moved there. This close reason should only be used for questions that are of good quality and complete.

I think that adding more context about that 'complete' part would be helpful. Since your commentary says that the intent of this message is to clarify that we shouldn't be migrating crappy questions, perhaps something along the lines of the following would have a similar effect, without having room for confusion regarding what actually makes a question 'complete':

This close reason should be used for questions that are of good quality and meet the standards of the site to which they are being migrated.

I also think that it would be helpful to link to the other site's 'on-topic' section in its help center. ([site].stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) This would allow close-voters to make sure that they aren't migrating a question that is in fact off topic on the other site as well.

Edit: this would have been useful when this question was migrated from Christianity.SE to English.SE. Sure, it seems to be more about English than about Christianity, but it still doesn't meet our site's 'please include the research you've done...' close reason. (The migration was eventually rejected and it's now back on Christianity, where it's also been closed.) This probably wouldn't have happened if the user(s) who migrated it to English had been able to easily access our help center.

Please use "on-topic" and "off-topic" instead of "in scope" and "out of scope"

While I have no problem understanding what's meant in the text when "in scope" and "out of scope" are used, the sites primarily use the text "on-topic" and "off-topic" to reference those concepts. For example, in the Meta Stack Exchange help center, there are 90 results for "on-topic" and 32 results for "off-topic", while there are only 7 results for "scope". "Scope" is also used to reference the scope of what's being asked within a question, rather than only the scope of the site, which makes it less clear what is being referenced in some cases. I suspect the use of the terms "in scope" and "out of scope" will be more confusing to people who are not that proficient in English. It's also better to maintain consistency across the site when using a term to refer to a concept. Doing so reduces confusion.

Besides what tripleee already wrote about the opinion-based reason, I'd add one more thing. Replace "may lead" with something stronger. Because, especially on the more subjective sites but certainly not only there, any user abusing the comment or answer section "may lead" to opinion-based text somewhere.

Previously, this close-reason was called primarily opinion-based, and I think the text should still reflect that by using something a bit stronger than just "may lead". Perhaps "is very likely to lead" or something.

Migration needs more clarity

One of the problems with migration is we don't offer good guidance. This advice hasn't really changed

The problem with allowing arbitrary sites to be entered is that a lot of the time, the community on one site has really no idea what is on-topic and considered of sufficient quality on another site. As such the Stack Exchange dev team has resisted adding a open-ended migrate option; the Stack Overflow community doesn't get to decide what is on topic in other communities, basically.

I have edited the Proposed column top hopefully clarify that some

If edited, the question will be reviewed and might be reopened.

I like that this gives hope to the user, but at the same time I feel it's a little misleading. Many new users miss the "significant edit" checkbox while editing. I think the guidance should make the user aware of that option, but I'm not sure how to do that without making the text too long. This is my best attempt:

On the 'Edit' page, you'll have the option to submit the question for review by the community to be considered for reopening.

Note: I'm still against making the checkbox ticked by default. So, that's not what I'm proposing here.

Re: Opinion Based

I think this one confuses everyone.

What I think the rule intends: we do not want answers that are simply opinions. We want answers that can be distinctly judged as being right or wrong. If your question cannot have distinctly correct answers then your question is bad.

What other people use the rule to justify: Your question could have more than one answer, and which answer is best is opinion, therefore the question is bad. Basically we are going to shut down your question because we're afraid it might invite opinion based answers. A question that invites 15 different ways to do a thing, all of which work, is not necessarily a bad question. (Perhaps it "needs more focus" but I'll address that in a second.)

It's the difference between "what color of socks is best" and "what sock material is the best insulating for cold weather". Both can have multiple answers. Some would VTC both question as "opinion based". Really only the first is opinion based, because it can have no answer that is not 100% opinion. The second can have more than one answer, and they may all be right, given certain conditions.

Some would still close the question thinking that more detail would eliminate the opinions, but in doing so they actually ruin the value of the question and the answers. We don't want 50 nuanced, hyper-specific questions about socks, all of which are so specific to the asker that they are of no value to anyone else. An array of solid answers detailing information relevant to cold weather and sock materials is of good general use, and more valuable for everyone.

Possible replacement wording:

Yours:

This question is asking for personal opinions that may lead to discussion or debate rather than objective solutions that can be supported with facts and citations. Not all subjective questions are off topic, so be sure you can identify which should be closed and which are in scope.

Mine:

Answers to this question are likely to be based primarily on subjective personal opinion not supported with facts and citations. While a question may invite multiple answers or ideas, it shouldn't lead to debate and argument.

"Needs improvement" must be changed too

I couldn't see this being addressed:

Reality is that lots of irredeemable questions get asked. There are lots of questions which can't be improved in order for them to become acceptable. The flag dialog should not have been changed to put everything under the heading of "needs improvement" when that is not true for many close reasons.

Please change it to something else. Perhaps "needs to be closed".

For example: in what way should this question be improved?

From The flagging dialog should not put all the custom close reasons under the heading of "needs improvement"

Lots of good changes in general, thank you for addressing this at long last!

Opinion based on sites without subjective questions?

This question is asking for personal opinions that may lead to discussion or debate rather than objective solutions that can be supported with facts and citations. Not all subjective questions are off topic, so be sure you can identify which should be closed and which are in scope.

This is probably a good way to word it in general, but the final sentence is misleading for sites where there are basically almost no allowed subjective questions. For example, on Christianity we've worked hard to make the scope restricted strictly to objectively answerable questions. There are some borderline questions that don't get closed, but they're not common. The problem with this wording is that it makes it look like there is a class of subjective questions that is accepted. Whereas I'd say that for those borderline subjective questions, if anyone thinks it's too subjective they should definitely vote to close it. The only subjective questions that remain are those whose subjectivity is very minor. I don't want the close modal to make our users second guess their inclination to close such questions.

Would it be possible to have two sets of descriptions then, based on whether the site is one that desires good subjective questions?

Duplicate/Guidance to others/proposed

Currently the proposal contains:

... and recommend the question be reopened.

I would align this to the text used for other classes:

... vote to reopen the question

or make even more explicit, that the re-open word has to be clicked. Since mostly inexperienced users will get that message, recommend may be a bit too cloudy.

Concerning comment from V2Blast

... vote to reopen the question or - if greyed out - leave a comment stating that intention

The problem I see is, that even an experienced user may have no clue, to which action recommend maps, since for other contexts this is a synonym for upvote. If I understand you correctly, vote to reopen may not be available. But the cloudy phrase is in 100% of the cases unhelpful.

Needs more focus ...

Encourage others to edit these questions?

The suggested new guidance to others is:

Guide the asker to update the question so it focuses on a single, specific problem. Narrowing the question will help others answer the question concisely. You may edit the question if you feel you can improve it yourself. If edited, the question will be reviewed and might be reopened.

(emphasis added by me)

What can make someone feel they can edit someone else's question? I can only think of a few reasons where this is the case:

• The author adds focus in the comments.
• By some coincidence all answers interpret the too broad question in the same narrow way. This scenario is not particularly likely, though.

On the other hand, the guidance to encourage edits could cause a lot of confusion such as:

• Pre-existing answers don't match the question anymore.
• The author gets frustrated that their question changes its meaning.

IMHO, these concerns may justify leaving out the guidance to encourage edits, or alternatively using more careful wording such as:

• "You may edit the question if you can improve it yourself." — At least this doesn't have the subjective word "feel".
• "If the author adds details in comments, consider editing them into the question" — This only addresses a subset of the potential reasons to edit, though.

Note that leaving out the sentence about edits doesn't imply that edits are not welcome.

Note: Feel free to edit the bullet lists!

The duplicate text still makes claims that don't agree with how the system works and what the rest of the message says.

We are supposed to mark two questions as duplicate because they are indeed asking the same thing, and one of the messages explicitly says so "[this] question has been asked before", but then the message muddies the waters by saying that they are "related". While technically true that two questions asking the same thing are "related", the meaning of "duplicates" is more narrow, since it means "these two questions are asking the same thing, so any answer would apply to one or the other".

Please, modify the text to make sure this is what it does:

I really like all of these suggestions.

Duplicate:

The duplicate verbiage has always been quite ambiguous about whether to close a question as duplicate if it sufficiently matches another question, or if it has been answered elsewhere. You can't close as duplicate if the target post doesn't have answers, which indicates to me that this is about avoiding duplicate answers. The "general notice" also says:

This question already has an answer here: ...

I think this needs to remain that way. We want to avoid copy-pasting answers, we don't necessarily need to care about whether the questions themselves are similar or not.

Of course this might look funny when we close a duplicate post by the same author that hasn't been answered yet...

Needs More Focus

Yours:

This post currently asks multiple different questions or is too broad to easily address in an answer. It should be edited to focus on a single, specific problem.

Proposed:

This post current covers multiple different topics or is too broad to easily address in a single answer. It should be edited to focus on a single, specific problem.

The issue I see with this close reason is that sometimes people have multiple literal question marks in a question, and this will get jumped on by some closers as a reason to close it.

But there's a big difference between: "Why are bananas yellow? Does the color have anything to do with the soil?" and "Why are bananas yellow? What's the best environment to plant them in?"

I can tell you some people would absolutely close both questions for "asking multiple questions" even though the first example is really just the asker trying to clarify their thought process in asking. It is still ultimately one topic: why are bananas yellow. The second is two completely different topics: (1) banana color source and (2) what environments banana trees thrive in. It makes no sense to have the first asker split up his question into two questions. That would actually be really annoying. Conversely, we want the second asker to split up his, as they are two completely different topics.

Duplicate messaging need to handle the case where no dupe target exists

Many questions are closed as a duplicate but have no dupe target so the close message shows like

This question already has an answer here:

with no actual question or answer listed

Needs details or clarity

Change to

Not meet our quality standard.

Source: Why do I see a message that my question does not meet quality standards?

Rationale:

Not because the OP is smart enough to bypass the quality-filter algorithm, it means that the question meets our quality standard. Computer Science and Technology people still has a lot of work to do to make computers able to evaluate in an efficient and effective way the quality of questions written by humans.

Related

FAQ

• How do I write a good title?
• What can I do when getting “This question body does not meet our quality standards”?

Discussions

• Should Stack Exchange in general be awarding "A"s for Effort?
• What is wrong with single-paragraph questions?