Return to Question

I've often commented on chat that "HNQs seem to straddle the line between the septic tank and greatness" - well not exactly but various things to that effect.

I came across a situation where a fairly terrible question had great, highly voted answers, and was deleted. In the discussion that followed, there seem to be two equally valid viewpoints:

1. The question should have been closed anyway, and the people who answered it should know better. Should we be closing these off quicker? Should they be deleted anyway?

2. The question should have been improved. I wonder if at the point where we have good answers, we can be more proactive about edits while the question is still fresh - there's kind of a precedent for this. I've reactively edited it, but should we have more eyes on HNQs for this sort of thing?

I've often commented on chat that "HNQs seem to straddle the line between the septic tank and greatness" - well not exactly but various things to that effect.

I came across a situation where a fairly terrible question had great, highly voted answers, and was deleted. In the discussion that followed, there seem to be two equally valid viewpoints:

1. The question should have been closed anyway, and the people who answered it should know better. Should we be closing these off quicker? Should they be deleted anyway?

2. The question should have been improved. I wonder if at the point where we have good answers, we can be more proactive about edits while the question is still fresh - there's kind of a precedent for this. I've reactively edited it, but should we have more eyes on HNQs for this sort of thing?

I've often commented on chat that "HNQs seem to straddle the line between the septic tank and greatness" - well not exactly but various things to that effect.

I came across a situation where a fairly terrible question had great, highly voted answers, and was deleted. In the discussion that followed, there seem to be two equally valid viewpoints:

1. The question should have been closed anyway, and the people who answered it should know better. Should we be closing these off quicker? Should they be deleted anyway?

2. The question should have been improved. I wonder if at the point where we have good answers, we can be more proactive about edits while the question is still fresh - there's kind of a precedent for this. I've reactively edited it, but should we have more eyes on HNQs for this sort of thing?

I've often commented on chat that "HNQs seem to straddle the line between the septic tank and greatness" - well not exactly but various things to that effect.

I came across a situation where a fairly terrible question had great, highly voted answers, and was deleted. In the discussion that followed, there seem to be two equally valid viewpoints:

1. The question should have been closed anyway, and the people who answered it should know better. Should we be closing these off quicker? Should they be deleted anyway?

2. The question should have been improved. I wonder if at the point where we have good answers, we can be more proactive about edits while the question is still fresh - there's kind of a precedent for this. I've reactively edited it, but should we have more eyes on HNQs for this sort of thing?