As most of you have probably noticed, a meta question was posted a few days ago that some of you did not wholeheartedly agree with.

Now that I've secured the "understatement of the year" award, let's talk about post quality here on Puzzling.SE. Here's what I'm going to address in this post: If we want challenge questions, very strict quality standards will have to be enforced in order to address the previously mentioned problems. We've spent lots of time thinking about your feedback, and this post is the result of the discussion that has been taking place since the posting of that meta question. Note that though this may sound in places like we're dictating policy, that's not its purpose; something needs to be done about the quality problem and this is intended to be a starting point for that discussion.


There's no question that the titles of most challenge questions can be greatly and easily improved to let users find ones they want to solve. Just take a look at how much people have improved several titles with such little effort when proposing questions for the new Area 51 proposal:

  • "Drink a Little Wine, Cut a Little Rug" -> "How many square feet of your expensive Persian rug can you save with just two cuts of any shape?"
  • "What's the password, again?" -> "Given a partial sequence of numbers, work out what the sequence is and provide a particular number"
  • "Escape the dungeon" -> "Escape the dungeon, by deciphering the codes and navigating the rooms to find a way out."
  • "Internship Available!" -> "From this strange product description, deduce what are you being asked to do and how are they paying you"
  • "The SEreal Killer (part 1)" -> "The SErial Killer part 1 - a multipart puzzle. You're given a story about a "murder" with clues and red herrings, and must work out where to look next"

Here's a simple suggestion to follow for titles: If the reader can't get a general idea of what your question is about solely from its title, it could probably be improved. In fact, a good, clear title could even almost allow a user to start writing an answer before even seeing the body. (Of course, this is impossible for some questions, but titles still need to be descriptive and clear. It's not an absolute requirement, but simply an indicator of a probably high-quality question, or at least not a terrible one.)

In a nutshell, whatever you were doing when you wrote those A51 titles, keep doing that.

Ambiguity of unanswered challenges

Another problem with challenge questions is that it's often hard to judge their quality if they have no answers. Unfortunately, it might -- key word: "might" -- sometimes be inevitable to simply close these questions in an assumption that they are low in quality, despite the possibility of a good answer revealing otherwise. (Which would also prevent answers, creating a vicious circle.) This doesn't have to be the case, though.

As an example, take this puzzle (I'm not pointing it out specifically as a "bad" question; I'm simply demonstrating where it can be improved, even though it's actually one of the better quality riddles we've had). Without having the answer, there's no way to tell whether the riddle is simply gibberish, or if it has an unreasonable, obscure, or "creative" answer.

However, this can easily be improved simply by clarifying the challenge. By adding extra details, it can be made clear that one is looking for a specific answer (eg. "an Oracle" -> "an omniscient being that always tells the truth"). In the above example, that's not really possible, and in cases where it is extremely hard to do this, it might even be necessary to add a self-answer (yes, this somewhat defeats the entire purpose of challenge questions other than the "fun" aspect; consider that perhaps the puzzle might not be a good fit for the site if this is the case). Note: If you have any other solutions to this problem you think might work, please do feel free to post them in an answer, since this is a problem that was not fully solved in the discussion.

Too broad questions, and answer quality

Perhaps, however, the crux of the problem (and the most important issue) is that many challenge questions are far too broad. In fact, an interesting analogy was brought up in the discussion: et. al. is to Puzzling as is (was) to PPCG. For those of you unfamiliar with the site, code-trolling was a thing that we originally thought was a good idea but eventually ended up having to kill with fire.

To continue this analogy, code-trolling seemed to be useful only for users to show off their ability at writing terrible code. The situation appears to be the same here. In other words, "The Oracle is lying!" and similar answers are akin to what code-trolling used to be. Of course, sometimes it's entirely the question's fault for encouraging these types of answers. Namely, extremely broad questions, such as (in most cases), long situation riddles that can be solved technically correctly in multiple ways, etc., can often encourage these "creative" answers, meant only to show off the answerer's ability to "answer" without answering.

Unfortunately, this really is a tricky problem. There might be a way around it without having to ban an entire category of posts; there might not. This might be deserving of another meta discussion in the future, but feel free to post your comments and feedback on this in the answers below as well. For now, please do continue to flag these "creative" answers as you see them and avoid asking questions that encourage them.

And more

In any case, feel free to voice your opinion in the answers, even though it's an issue not explicitly mentioned here. We really want to listen to your feedback and make Puzzling.SE a better place in the long term.

We've locked the previous question on meta, in hopes of focusing the discussion here and elsewhere on meta. Even though that clearly wasn't the solution the community wants, we still need to address the stated issues. Let's move past that bump in the road and use it to focus on solving our site's issues. Regards, the Puzzling Moderator Team.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I want to point out that making your question title descriptive doesn't stop you from including a thematic title in the question body or something like "Rolling Stones: A visual code hidden in an album cover". $\endgroup$
    – xnor
    Commented Dec 6, 2014 at 5:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So how can we deal with catch phrases in the future? Will they be shut down at any case or is there a way to combine? Like you did with the serial killer. $\endgroup$
    – Avigrail
    Commented Dec 6, 2014 at 11:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'd also recommend defining content guidelines for both headline and preface. Just to make clear. $\endgroup$
    – Avigrail
    Commented Dec 6, 2014 at 12:13
  • $\begingroup$ How do we know if a question is a good one before it has been answered? We look at the other questions by the user. People are fairly consistent in their quality most of the time. For new users, either add additional rules in place that only apply till a user's first well received question or be lenient till we know if they're any good. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 8, 2014 at 14:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @TravisKindred Please don't do that. Posts should be voted on (and moderated) by their own quality, not by the user. $\endgroup$
    – Doorknob
    Commented Dec 8, 2014 at 14:48
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Doorknob冰 I agree. I simply feel that a user who has only posted horrible questions is likely to do so in the future without correction. Likewise, a great user that posts a seemingly horrid puzzle may actually be posting a great one that's hard to see. A question should absolutely be judged on its own merits, but the user's history should be taken into account before punitive action is taken. That is not to say that a good user's bad puzzle should be unchanged or a bad user's great puzzle removed. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 8, 2014 at 15:08
  • $\begingroup$ Do you have a reference for "an interesting analogy was brought up in the discussion: lateral-thinking et. al. is to Puzzling as code-trolling is (was) to PPCG"? I'm wondering whether you're half-remembering a comment I made on the PPCG chat three weeks ago or whether it's in reference to something else. (And who's the "we" in "we originally thought it was a good idea"?) $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 9, 2014 at 15:59
  • $\begingroup$ @Peter The source of that analogy was me, in a moderator chatroom. (I believe the 'we' refers to the Code Golf community as a whole.) $\endgroup$
    – user20
    Commented Dec 10, 2014 at 9:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Emrakul, thanks. That explains why I couldn't find it. (If so, then it's a factual error, and should be changed to "some of us". I and others said it was a bad idea from the start). $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 10, 2014 at 9:22
  • $\begingroup$ Can we make this a "featured" tagged post? $\endgroup$
    – BmyGuest
    Commented Dec 10, 2014 at 21:44

5 Answers 5



What happened in Area 51:

  • In Area 51, the example questions have no bodies, so they must be entirely self-contained only in the title.
  • Most puzzles and riddles are impossible to be crammed to a single title. At least for me, I discarded some questions simply because I found no way to reduce them to only a title.
  • In order to cram the most content in a single title, a lot of coordinate effort was necessary from many people. That was not an easy task afterall.
  • The reason that driven the improvement of the titles was that if they are not self-descriptive enough, a diamond moderator might suddenly close them as "too broad" or "not a real question". Again, since they have no bodies, there was nothing to redeem the question otherwise.

Put simply, what driven the improvement in the titles was a combination of a good and a bad reason: The good reason was community coordination and collaboration. The bad reason was fear.

Could we do the same here? Perhaps, but this will be not easy. Being moved by fear is not good, and if you take out the fear, the questions would probably just have the original titles. When people elaborate questions, they are normally lonely, so no coordination and community collaboration would happen. What we could do here is to incentive people in improving the titles. And by improving, it would mean "make then as self-contained as possible and the most descriptive of the question as possible". In fact the title is not a title anymore, it becomes a one-line summary of the question instead. And again, for many questions, this is simply impossible.

So, what is an useful directive to take in writing titles? I propose this:

The title of the question should in fact be a one-line summary of its contents.

Bad questions

Creating a question is easy. Creating a good one is hard. This is somewhat that happens universally in StackExchange and elsewhere. Here on puzzling, anyone can invent a crappy puzzle or riddle in just 5 minutes and post it. But to invent a good one, it is necessary some creativity, talent, writing skills, time, practice and experience, and not everyone has all of these and not everyone knows that he/she is lacking any of these.

Bad questions will inevitable appear. Further, they rarely are bad in the mind of their creators, they are bad only to everyone else. People who create bad questions tends to sincerely believe that their questions are great, or at least good enough, so simply telling people "do not post bad questions" will not change anything.

Bad questions are full of problems as vagueness, broadness, ambiguity, errors and a lot of more problems. See this question and especially its answers for a further discussion about how to evaluate if a question is good or not.

To show what are happening, I will incorporate a bad question writer creating an awful question, but thinking that it is great:

Ok, I want to create a good murder mystery! Lets see... Ah, there would be a millionaire that has died. Who could kill him... Ah, the buttler, of course. Why he would do that? To get his money obviously. Who else is around? Hmmm.... Ah, he has a neighbour who owns a dog and... The dog don't likes the millionaire. And... there could be a lawyer somewhere, this might be cool. What the lawyer was doing... Oh, his testament, of course! And the buttler knew that, so it killed the millionaire before the testament gets done. Hmm... I will need somebody else to this be really cool... Oh, a gardener that is dating a blonde drug-addicted woman would be funny, haha. And the girl likes the dog, how cute! That is it, its perfect! Now, it is time to write the question:

Who killed the millionaire?

You found a millionaire died in his mansion. His lawyer were just preparing his testament when he died. His neighbour has a dog that don't like him, but the girlfriend of the gardener, a beautiful blonde girl, likes the dog. You know that she has some problems with drugs. And there was a buttler in the mansion too. Who killed the millionaire and why?

And then, yet another awful crappy question is posted! The author sincerely believes that this is a good question and it makes perfect sense in his/her own head. But in fact it has no logical solution that leads to the conclusion that the author were pretending that was the correct.

When still unsolved, many people may think that the question is in fact good, and sincerely starts to make his/her brains works to found a solution. When they found something that might be an answer to the question they post it, in hope that it might be the correct answer or at least get some advice of the correct solution. Other people, post ridiculous trollish answers as a way to subtly tell the question author that his question is crappy.

Lateral thinking

I disagree that and PPCG's are somewhat related. The purpose of code-trolling is/was to ridicule awful gimme-teh-codez SO questions (and I know this because I am the inventor of code-trolling). Lateral-thinking has nothing to do with that, the author has an intended correct solution, and the tag is used to tell that there is an unknown context unclear in the question that needs to be guessed in order to find the correct answer. About the answers, this is very different too. In you are/were supposed to post answers trolling the fictional bad question OP. In , answerers are supposed to try to find the correct and serious answer, and most people do (or at least try to do) that. What happens is that some people just do wild/strange guesses or post trolling answers ridiculing the actual question itself or the process needed to find the answer, and not because they are supposed to do that.

The problem with is that in order to correctly solve the question, you need to correctly guess what is the context of the given question. If the question requires unreasonably guessing, it is probably a bad one, because there is probably an infinitude of radically different possible but equally valid ways to solve it, and only one of them is considered by the author as the correct. And here is the root of the problem.

So we may get back to this question. Although it is negatively scored at the moment that I am writing this and is indeed broad, it goes directly to where the problem lies and should be better evaluated IMO. I really recommend people to read the answers and to try to post additional answers to that question, regardless the fact that it is broad or not (this could and IMO should be fixed by editing and/or making the question community-wiki and/or migrating it to meta).

So, to put simply, the problem is not the tag. The problem is the infinitely equally valid and radically different ways to solve the question, regardless of the way it is tagged. In fact, I think that it is indeed possible to write a valid good question that do not suffers from this problem, although at this moment I don't know how.

Back to Area 51

The proposal at the Area 51 still stands. Why? Because we still don't know what would or not be on-topic here! I still did not found an unambiguous, clear and direct official statement that puzzle challenges are welcome and that riddles challenges are equally welcome. When we get a firm and definitive position in favor of that, I am sure that everybody would be pleased to abandon the proposal. If we get it to the opposite, everybody would be sure that the way is to work to make it reach the commitment phase and then beta.

How to avoid writing bad questions and bad answers?

The majority of people here have no clear directive about how to write a good question, it is entirely based on intuition and/or imitating. I didn't saw anything clear about that in meta and this question (again) that is asking about this is just a few days old and negatively voted at the time that I am writing this.

As I mentioned before, it is necessary to have some creativity, talent, writing skills, time, practice and experience, and not everyone has all of these and not everyone knows that he/she is lacking any of these. So what to do?

  • Discuss more about question-writing here in meta (or even in the main site). We currently are lacking a good debate of how a question writer could improve his/her skills in question writing. I will not discuss it in detail here because this is not the purpose of this question, but we should really create some (meta-)questions dedicated for this. Without these, we will not have any improvement in questions quality. And the debate need to be much more focused in writing questions than in disputes about if spoilers are good or not or if deciding that X or Y are or not on-topic. We need to train the community about how to write good questions and not about how to downvote and close crappy questions.

  • Provide feedback to question writers. When you write a question that you think that is good (even if it is not), it is really frustrating to get downvotes popping out from nowhere without a single word telling you why. It is still worse if your question is suddenly closed without anyone telling that before its closure (and remember, people without enough rep can't see the close-votes). If you think that the question has some problem, even if it is glaring obvious for you, post a comment. This way the author will be able to learn from it instead of only getting frustration that could even result in he/she going away from the site forever.

  • Good questions attract good answers. People naturally are more zealous on posting answers than questions. We have more directives on meta about posting answers than posting questions. Bad answers are quickly defeat by better answers due to the voting system and this happens because the SE QA format was designed to naturally put a selection pressure for better answers. If the question is great, an eventual answerer rarely will post an stupid answer because he/she knows that this would only attract downvotes or make his/her answer be ignored. OTOH, no such pressure exists for questions, and if a particular question is bad, people are unwilling to put work in trying to answer, or may end posting answers that are as bad as the question, or may post trollish answers, overly creative answers, or just strange/wild guesses in hope to find the answer by luck. So I conclude that the key to improve the answers is to improve the questions.

  • Be nice, especially to newcomers. No one born knowing how to write great questions and answers. It is almost impossible to write a good question or answer without some mistake that will needed to be fixed by editing later. Most people don't know how to write great questions or answers, but they are invited to participate and try anyway, otherwise we would create an elitist and doomed community. Everyone starts by writing crappy or mediocre questions and improve with time, so we should not discourage them.

We could measure quality in an infinitude of ways, but lets consider two (generic and vague) particular ways: The real content quality and the perceived content quality. Although I will not discuss for now what the vague and generic "content quality" is, lets see the difference between the "real" and the "perceived":

  • The perceived content quality do not accounts for closed, deleted or downvoted content.
  • The real content quality accounts for closed, deleted and downvoted content.

Aggressive downvoting, close-voting and deleting is not the way to improve the real content quality. This might perhaps only improve the perceived content quality.

To improve the real content quality, what we need is feedback, incentive, training and clear directives and instructions in meta and elsewhere. With that, people will tend to learn faster on how to post content of better quality, the overall quality itself improves, and this results in less need of editing, downvoting, close-voting, deleting, complaining, flamewars, rants and frustration.

About riddles

Riddles are a special case. They have obscure and unclear meaning on purpose by design, and thus are subject to wild/strange guesses in most of the cases. People might argue that "oh, then riddles are too broad and/or unclear what you are asking. Close them. End of story.", but this is not really the case.

Writing good riddles is harder than writing good puzzles (or even non-puzzling questions) on any other category, but it is indeed possible and have been done here before anyway. But again, we are severely lacking meta-questions and directives about how to write good questions (and especially riddles), and without these, the quality will never improve.

In fact, there is still some debate about if they are or not on-topic, so we are still way behind the point of defining how to create good or bad riddles, but I think that we should run for it anyway and declare them "clearly and undoubtly on-topic". Otherwise, we will need to go to Area 51 or sites outside SE and we really do not want this.

And, as suggested by xnor in a comment, the fact that riddles are on-topic does not implies that every riddle is on-topic. Further, bad riddles are bad questions, and this do not means that all the riddles are bad nor that bad riddles are acceptable. In fact this could be generalized to every category of question in this site: if foo is on-topic, this do not implies that every foo is on-topic; Bad foo questions are bad questions, and this do not implies that every foo question is bad nor that bad foo questions are acceptable.

How to evaluate a question?

That is a one-million dollar question! It is very hard to tell what is or not a good puzzle or riddle if you don't know the solution. This way, people don't know how to vote on questions, only on answers. We have a question about that here. And again, this question is very recent, so we are just starting to debate the issue, a very large and important issue. Without knowing how to evaluate a puzzle or riddle without knowing the answer, it is very hard to improve the quality and we are just starting to debate this.

A little note (just to be pedantic)

Doorknob, you said that "... even though it's actually one of the better quality riddles we've had ...". And I hope that you just had forget to write the "not" in that statement, otherwise I vehemently disagree, IMO it is either a crappy or no more than a very mediocre riddle and we have plenty of better ones. But it is just a single question between many many others, so I will not debate much about it.

  • $\begingroup$ BTW, since English is not my mother language (and even if it was), feel free to fix any eventual typos or grammatical errors that you might encounter here. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 6, 2014 at 11:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Fantastic post! You put clearly into words some vague ideas I've been struggling with for a while. The stepping into the mind of someone writing a bad question was especially illuminating. If you're skipped here to the end of the post because it's long, go read the whole thing, it's worth it. $\endgroup$
    – xnor
    Commented Dec 6, 2014 at 11:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Just a small suggestion: People seem to have misinterpreted statements that "riddles are definitely on topic" as every riddle being on-topic and good, no matter its other faults, like here. Could you perhaps make it clearer that you mean for riddles to be on-topic as a category? $\endgroup$
    – xnor
    Commented Dec 6, 2014 at 11:46
  • $\begingroup$ @xnor Edited. What do you think? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 6, 2014 at 12:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Victor Looks great! $\endgroup$
    – xnor
    Commented Dec 6, 2014 at 12:04
  • $\begingroup$ So the questions you cited from me were all examples of bad questions D: $\endgroup$
    – warspyking
    Commented Dec 6, 2014 at 13:47
  • $\begingroup$ @warspyking No, I did not said that. In fact I think quite the opposite. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 6, 2014 at 13:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @warspyking Your security to the party question was good enough to inspire more than 30 continuations/imitations, so how could this be a bad question then? About your other two questions that I cite in this post, as I said, they are exactly the type of questions that people need to ask here. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 6, 2014 at 13:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Victor My bad, I only skimmed through the answer. Ty for all the references, and so true about the security thing! :D $\endgroup$
    – warspyking
    Commented Dec 6, 2014 at 14:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ +1 "Be nice, specially to newcomers." $\endgroup$
    – A E
    Commented Dec 6, 2014 at 14:03
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I deleted my other comment about this (for mercy), but it has to be said. "That example riddle is one of the worst I have ever seen." $\endgroup$
    – d'alar'cop
    Commented Dec 8, 2014 at 3:04

Victor's answer is very good - excellent in fact.

Some suggestions:

Lead by example
by posting high-quality questions and answers.

Be positive
We should find more ways to reward good content. This should not be about finding more ways to punish the community.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "Standards will have to be enforced" is not at all a negative attitude. Nor is it punishing the community. But I agree that we need to find more ways to reward good content. $\endgroup$
    – xnor
    Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 12:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Points 2 and 3 are just perfect. Be the change you want to see. $\endgroup$
    – d'alar'cop
    Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 13:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @xnor I think that we still have enough ways to punish the community, we don't need more. BTW punish the community is not the same as punish bad users. About standards enforcement, there are much better ways to achieve this than what is currently happening. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 14:22
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ This post gave me an idea for being more positive: give feedback even when everything was good. I've been shy to post such things before because I felt like I had nothing to say and no improvements to suggest. But even a post that just says "this was great, here's are the things that worked well: ..." can be both helpful and good for morale. That way, we're not just talking about flaws while remaining silent on good features. $\endgroup$
    – xnor
    Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 23:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks @xnor. Positive feedback is extremely useful. The current consensus in organisational research is that a ratio of praise to criticism of about 5:1 is most effective: "even the most well-intentioned criticism can rupture relationships and undermine self-confidence and initiative. It can change behavior, certainly, but it doesn’t cause people to put forth their best efforts. Only positive feedback can motivate people to continue doing what they’re doing well, and do it with more vigor, determination, and creativity." $\endgroup$
    – A E
    Commented Dec 8, 2014 at 10:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So one should (in an ideal world) aim to leave about 5 pieces of praise for every 1 piece of criticism. "Standards will have to be enforced" is a negative attitude in that it focuses exclusively on negative aspects to the complete exclusion of positive aspects. A bit like this (NSFW). $\endgroup$
    – A E
    Commented Dec 8, 2014 at 11:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @xnor I've noticed you actively doing this. It is making a difference $\endgroup$
    – d'alar'cop
    Commented Dec 9, 2014 at 3:50

Puzzle titles

Yes, they should be improved. I've seen several OP's changing their titles recently - and I've started to do so myself.

I would suggest that moderators (or anyone feeling responsible) should down vote a question with a bad title and leave an according comment under the OP. This comment could be like the one below. (Please edit if you have a better text)

-1 for a bad puzzle title. Can you please try to improve and summarize the main-aspect of your puzzle in the question? I will remove the down vote once the title has improved.


All of the given answers I've read so far are very good and I nearly agree with everything. One problem with those answers though: Too many points in each of them.

It is hard to vote/discuss them if one has to discuss the whole convolute of it. May I suggest that we post multiple, smaller postings in meta-thread like this, so that we can get a community-vote/poll on the individual issues?

At least on those parts of the postings which are meant as suggestions for policy.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with this, but it's not really an answer to the question. It should be a comment on the applicable answer(s), or perhaps its own Meta post (although this problem is endemic to Meta sites). $\endgroup$
    – jscs
    Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 22:55

Closing votes on presumably bad questions

The problem has been discussed in detail in various answers in this thread. I would like to propose the following policy:

Give puzzles some time. A OP may be negatively voted and commented on accordingly, but close-votes are given only after a suitable time-span (3-5 days?) has passed.

Yes, bad/broad/whatever content should be eventually closed to keep this site nice and clean, but there is no need for hurry, really. Some gems of puzzles are not easily differentiated from real crap at first sight. And sometimes, specific puzzles require their audience to be appreciated.

The site will not deteriorate in quality because of a few days with not-so-nice posts. It's the overall quality that counts.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The whole point of close votes is to put the question on hold so it can be fixed. $\endgroup$
    – Miniman
    Commented Dec 10, 2014 at 22:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Miniman, if I understand B correctly he's arguing that some puzzles which at first sight might appear 'bad' are actually subtle rather than bad and therefore don't need to be 'fixed'. $\endgroup$
    – A E
    Commented Dec 10, 2014 at 23:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Miniman The thing is, that an immediately put [On hold] question not only turns away people, but also leaves a rather hostile impression. I think a question should be put [On hold] when it is clear it is a bad one and not when it looks suspiciously so. As for the reasons given in other postings, it is not always that clear-cut for P.SE posts. Hence my proposal of "let them live" (for a while) and vote for closure a bit later as usually on other SE sites. $\endgroup$
    – BmyGuest
    Commented Dec 10, 2014 at 23:07
  • $\begingroup$ True. Another approach is to amend the question to improve its suitability for this site, rather than voting to close it. That's what was trying to do here. This obviously does take a bit more time and effort than a simple VTC but it could be long-term more helpful, I'm thinking. $\endgroup$
    – A E
    Commented Dec 10, 2014 at 23:10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Please, please keep voting to close questions. Let people know in comments that their question can be improved, and they will. I've seen it happen dozens of times over. $\endgroup$
    – user20
    Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 21:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Emrakul I am absolutely in favor of closing-votes, I just don't think we should fire at questions as quickly as in other SE sites because of the ambiguity of puzzle-quality as stated in the OP. $\endgroup$
    – BmyGuest
    Commented Dec 12, 2014 at 6:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .