First time posters often ask questions which fall below site standards, or outside site guidelines, or (importantly) which are perceived to by some group members.
I suggest that the present means of dealing with such questions is frequently unnecessarily discouraging and excessively hard on new users and often turns away those who might in time become valuable contributors to the site. People whose primary language is not English are additionally disadvantaged - not only by their inability to express themselves clearly in English, but because a core of existing users are "linguistically inflexible" (aka 'challenged') and their reactions often have a disproportionate effect on how new posts are dealt with.
The majority of group users are probably "western". While it may not be a primary aim of the group to spread 'international good will', those who receive a good reception and become part of the group are liable to usefully benefit 'international relations'.
It is NOT my desire (despite prior assertions to the contrary) to encourage laziness, sloppy behaviour, poor questions or obscure language. I am not suggesting "spoon feeding" or excessive tolerance of unacceptable behaviours. I do believe that it is reasonable to assist those who are inexperienced with the site's processes and requirements to make the transition to acceptability without excessive barriers being placed in their path.
To 'cut to the chase', for the reasons mentioned below, I would like to propose that
Questions which fail or apparently fail to meet standards be given a 'review period' where clear notice is given that the question is at risk of being closed. (The period could vary but in many cases 1 week seems about right. At present a new user may ask a question one evening and find that by morning 'people far away' have judged their question wanting and closed it with no possible chance of response or action on their part. Once a question is closed it is much harder to interact usefully with the OP.)
Questions should be clearly marked or annotated so that it is clear what is required and what will happen and when, if no action is taken. Addition of a header within the question may achieve this effectively with only a little more effort than at present.
And then, attempts are made to work with the user to both improve the question
Where necessary attempts are made to make it more comprehensible to group members who are "less flexible than some in their linguistic abilities". (While this could be achieved just by editing by others, a better long term result should be able to be achieved by assisting the OP with their wording.)
Questions where it is unclear whether they are asking for 'turn-key' solutions should be investigated to see if design aspect is involved or if it is indeed just a 'shopping' question.
Where closing or pending closure is intended, some reason should be given that is clear, relevant and helpful. The existing standard reasons often fail to address the real point to n extent which is sometimes farcical.
While some cases are clear-cut, whether a question is acceptable or not is often a judgement call and matter of opinion. Often a relatively small amount of discussion over a few days allows a question to be improved or makes it more obvious that the question is a reasonable one that was not well understood by some members.
In a significant number of examples of "poor" questions a significant factor is that English is not the poster's primary language. In some cases the result is essentially incomprehensible to all or almost all people, while in other cases the question is clear enough to those who are more familiar with unusually phrased material. It is not uncommon for questions to be essentially clear to some people and incomprehensible to others - and sometimes "the few" close a question which others would be happy to deal with and to help the OP improve.
In a significant proportion of cases, where a new user has a question closed it is never reopened or worked with. In some cases this is because the person has had only a transient interest in the site and, having been locked out, move on to find other more friendly places to ask. However, it is evident that some users who are capable technically, and who can manage a good level of English, still find the closed-question barrier too hard to overcome and never come back.
Some would (and some do) argue that the loss of such people is to the site's advantage, if they can't speak an "acceptable" [tm] level of English they are not wanted here and 'good riddance' to them. [[To my ear some such arguments sound to be verging on 'white supremacist' but that point does not need to be addressed in any depth in order to improve how we deal with this situation overall.]]
Much more could be said :-).
I have heard much on both sides of this argument in the past here and elsewhere. I note that arguments (on both sides) are not always logical or correct and that (often suspect) metaphors may be used in place of fact. This is a subjective area and deals with people's reactions and behaviours. Attempts to and force how people MUST behave are liable to be less than effective.
Related:
This question Why are we so strict with closing questions, can't we just keep them open? from 2011 is related but the issue seems worth addressing again 3 years on. Reading the prior material should be helpful.
Here is a 2011 example of what was indeed a very poorly put question. I'll paste it here as not all can see deleted questions.
How can I use a transistor with two circuits?
I have two wires I want to control in one circuit. I have a control circuit to control this wires. How can I use a transistor to control those two wires with the control circuit?
It was closed within two hours of opening and deleted 2 months later. Despite the very poor phrasing I believe I understood what was required. I would almost certainly have had no problem working with the OP to improve the question to an acceptable level. Whether this site wants to bother answering questions at this level is probably an issue to some and may form part of their usually unstated reasons for "doing violence to" such questions wherever possible.
