[ircmaxell]

This has been discussed time and time again:

- http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/256501/338665 - http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/271899/338665 - http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/278092/338665 - http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/285471/338665

Etc...

And especially: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120275/is-asking-oth...

Basically, there's nothing wrong with the concept, unless it's used incorrectly. So if someone closes something incorrectly (you can point to a definite reason it's incorrectly closed), then re-open it or raise a meta post.

If you want to remove the ability for the people helping moderate a community to moderate, then how do you expect it to be moderated?

The big issue is that there are a LOT of low quality questions being asked. Duplicates. Many times literally copy/pasting the the question title into Google will give you the answer. Should these questions remain open because you want to repwhore? Should they remain open and further reduce the ability for Google to take you to a good canonical answer?

Or should they be closed and point to the good canonical answer? That way people can find their way to good content, rather than littering the site with duplication and poor copies of other answers.

The meaning of the CV reasons has changed over time as the community matures and figures out what works and what doesn't.

I do disagree with closing questions about particular framework (unless there's a dedicated SE site for it).

But bitching doesn't help. Raise a question on Meta. Step into the chat rooms and have a discussion. Get involved and help us fix things.

All bitching does is make the people who are putting time and effort into the community feel like they are doing something bad. Which is the fastest way to kill a community.

[reitanqild]

And still the audience here find it interesting.

Happily this isn't Stack Overflow and this discussion hasn't been closed yet just because a few admins didn't think think it would fit within "Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups."

Edit: to clarify - there are a number of reasons why this topic is interesting to quite a few of us[1]. Here are two:

* the usability issue of what we experience as someone someone destroying a good resource.

* reputation systems: a facinating thing in itself.

[1]: as can be seen by the simple fact that this post is still on the frontpage despite - I guess - having been flagged multiple times : )

[ircmaxell]

That's definitely valid. However, in the vast majority of cases where someone complains about CV-PLS in my experience, it's because they had their question closed.

For example: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/158712/147370

Look in this very thread. You have people saying it's a horrible practice. Yet nobody really saying what should be done instead.

The fact of the matter is that there is a huge problem on SO of under-moderation. Over 11,000 questions have >=1 closevote right now. CV-PLS is one technique that the community has found effective in keeping the site searchable and with good content.

The people who are against it, I'd love to hear ideas on other effective methods. But to say it should be forbidden is a bit short-sighted.

[reitanqild]

> The people who are against it, I'd love to hear ideas on other effective methods. But to say it should be forbidden is a bit short-sighted.

As I mentioned earlier: If this is the biggest problem the raise the bar for asking questions.

Today the site practically begs new users to ask questions as it is one of a few options that are always available for unexperienced users.

[whiddershins]

Are we SURE closing questions is that important? Maybe the original article is on to something: if Stack Overflow was built on a more google-like assumption, relevance would influence rankings and visibility of questions/answers/posts ... but there would be less need for outright removal/closing, which is alienating to posters on a human an emotional level.

What is the argument for closing questions ... logistical? Database is too big?

I am sure there are valid reasons, but maybe they should be reexamined in the context of the human cost, and some tweaks could be made.