7

We should have a custom close reason for recommendation questions There's a strong consensus that they're off-topic, but there also seems to be a way of changing recommendation questions into valid questions, therefore making them on-topic. I therefore propose the following close reason: Questions asking for list of works or reading recommendations are off-...


6

I don't think we need to change it. Let's have a look at the wording of the "primarily opinion-based" close reason, which appears in the close banner on every question put on hold for this reason: Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, ...


5

I voted to close the question that prompted this meta question, but agree that Spagirl raises a valid point. I think that we need to clarify our guidance to askers about list-based, recommendation-based, and opinion-based questions. To begin with, when we say "list-based questions," we are actually conflating two things: A question that asks for a ...


5

Brief description The name shown to flaggers/close-voters when seeking an option in the close menu: Recommendation or open-ended list question Usage guidance The description shown to flaggers/close-voters after choosing this close reason: This question seeks recommendations or an open-ended list of works. Recommendation requests, including open-ended ...


5

What's wrong with "primarily opinion-based"? Let me play devil's advocate for a moment here. Do we really need to change the existing close reason? Yes, many of our good questions are subjective and may not have a single correct answer, but the close reason doesn't say "opinion-based": it says "primarily opinion-based". Some questions ARE more opinion-based ...


3

Question #1: should be closed. Although the question is posted with reference to specific book(s), it's asking about any books which use particular elements: Have there been any works of literature featuring [...] has anyone ever made up stories based upon such [creatures]? This seems no better than the original examples of bad recommendation ...


2

I actually think that the text of the old "Not Constructive" close reason is a better fit for our site. As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If ...


2

What problem would this be solving? Are we getting inundated with bad "unsupported conjecture" questions? Until they become a significant problem, it's not really worth creating a special close reason for them. If so, is the community failing to handle them? Are we getting a lot of these questions which are bad for the site (not just 'bad questions', which ...


2

I think question #2 should be closed on the basis of being "too broad" and have voted as such. For my birthday, one of my kids bought me a copy of Podkin One-Ear, a fantasy novel aimed at children. I read it and enjoyed it, for its imaginative setting and well-drawn characters if nothing else. So: is it really a children's book? The question is rhetorical ...


1

Question 1 is an open-ended list-based question, and so IMO close-worthy. Open-ended list-based questions such as this one ask "Are there any works that meet such-and-such criteria?" On the one hand, it's hard to prove a negative and give a definite no; maybe there are such works, but potential answerers just don't know of them. And just because ...


1

For the sake of offering a different perspective on these questions, I propose that we interpret them literally instead of as implicit recommendation questions. In other words, interpret questions asking, "Are there any X?" or "Have there been any X" as yes-no-questions, unless there is something in the question body that suggests that the intent is ...


1

This could be a good idea, but I think you chose the wrong part of it to tweak. The bit about "facts, references, or specific expertise" works just as well for our site as for any other. You proposed adding "quotes, textual evidence, contextualizing information", but all of this really comes under facts, references, or specific expertise. On the other hand,...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible