Is there any way we could get an additional "closed" question flag that clearly spells out that the OP needs to include more information?

Question

Is it possible that the we could get an additional closing flag that explicitly spells out "This question is closed until the OP adds more information"?

We get a lot of questions that lack necessary detail. These questions generally get closed (as they should be) because they lack necessary information required to be able to answer them.

However, the flag used for closing questions that lack sufficient information is "Not a real question".

Now, I certainly agree that this applies to many questions. There was the guy who wanted to know how to design an entire laptop, for example.

On the other hand, there are a lot of questions that probably are a real question, it's just that the OP is new/clueless, and thinks this is more of a traditional forum then a Q&A site. When these sort of questions are closed as "not a real question", I tend to suspect it drives the OP away entirely, rather then incentives them to fix up their question.

Furthermore, at least for me, the wording of "not a real question" closure marker doesn't imply the intended message at all. In many cases, the OP has a question that would be welcomed here (and we may even be able to tell this from what has been posted so far), it's just that we can't answer the question using the presently provided information. Now, a lot of this hinges on my (completely subjective) reading and interpretation of the closure dialog, but it sure doesn't imply what it actually means, at least in my opinion.

What I think we really need is an option to close a question in a way that explicitly specifies that we are ready and willing to reopen. Something like:

Furthermore, the "see the FAQ" link does not actually give you any more information on how you can get your post reopened. Literally, the FAQ "answer" as to why your post was closed is an exact copy of the text in the "Closed" information box.

Nowhere is it clearly spelled out that reopening of questions is a standard procedure, and particularly for new users, who are more accustomed to a traditional forum, where the closing of a thread is generally permanent, likely simply leave, rather then fix their question.

---

_{^{Apologies to Leon Heller, Camil Staps, PeterJ, Anindo Ghosh, Kortuk♦. The closed post that prompted me to ask this question was one they had closed, so I used the closure dialog from there for my images above.}}

Answer 1

I think 'suspended' sounds less definite, less demotivating and therefore better.

'closed' sounds like: Go away, we don't want your question here. Especially to new comers.

Answer 2

Here are links to the meta.stackoverflow questions soliciting feedback on proposed modifications to the close vote system. If you have issues with the current system, I would highly encourage you to participate (vote, comment, etc...).

The close reason rework project:

1. Changes to "close as duplicate" (part deux)
2. Help us make "Off-Topic" close reasons clearer to the OP
3. Help us make "Not Constructive" and "Not a Real Question" closures more effective
4. Every "close" has its thorn: replace "close" with "on hold" for the first five days

Answer 3

Apology accepted. But no, I don't think we should have another close reason.

If a question is ambiguous, vague or incomplete, that would all fall under the new close reason. That leaves only overly broad and rhetorical for the old reason. Rhetorical easily falls under not constructive as well, so only overly broad would be for not a real question. What I want to point out with this is that not a real question and insufficient information are nearly the same.

Then perhaps a change of the description? I'm way more open to that, but don't see how it would both address incompleteness better and be applicable to other reasons (overly broad & rhetorical) as well.

What we can do until we have a solution to this, because I absolutely agree with you we have a problem here, is leaving a comment to explain the close votes if it's somehow possible to get the question reopened after editing. I've seen clabacchio do this quite a lot:

^{I closed the question to give you the time and make it complete and answerable. Please note that you can at any time edit your question, including details or fixing mistakes. – clabacchio♦ yesterday}