The proposal to the tag was to remove the tag because it was too broad, and retag the questions with more appropriate tags. I voted this one up because I agree with this.

The actual solution that appears to be being implemented is to close/delete questions in this tag.

Looking through the list of closure candidates, I see many which are asking about design patterns, and the SDLC, which are on-topic for this site.

Why are we focusing our time on closing these questions, especially since this was not the proposed solution for this tag? I feel user and moderator resources could be better spent elsewhere.


I haven't looked through all of them yet, but the majority of closure candidates are not on the list because they are off-topic, but because they are not constructive. For example, this question on architectural patterns is on-topic, but it's also asking for a list of things. Using a question to generate a list is not constructive. Another example is this question about what methodologies read up on, which is far too broad and general for a good question.

The purpose of a STCI action is to fully improve the tag - remove the bad tag, retag good questions with appropriate tags, and either fix or remove bad questions from the site so they don't remain as bad examples.

If you think that you can make a heroic edit to anything on the closure list, please do so. It will get reviewed before anything happens. However, keep in mind that many have answers and that it's often better to close/delete and re-ask questions that have answers that will be destroyed/rendered invalid by a heroic edit.

  • 2
    What I really objected to was being told the cleanup was in response to a call for proposals, but the actual proposal which was what was voted on doesn't even get implemented. I looked at a few questions and did see some list-like questions, but some had good info and I think moderator time could be better used elsewhere. Also, what's going to happen when people see a lot of questions closed on our front page, which all appear to be related to architecture/design and SDLC? Many users are already unclear about the site scope, and this is just going to make it worse – Rachel Mar 8 '12 at 16:11
  • The proposal was to follow the STCI as defined in the original post defining what to do. I proposed this tag for clean-up and it's exactly what Mark described would happen as part of any STCI and exactly what I was looking for - all good questions would get new tags, all bad questions closed. As far as the homepage, a closed question should never get to the homepage as part of STCI. The heroic edits will come before the closures/deletions on March 21/22. Any closed questions will just have the tag nuked and not be bumped up. – Thomas Owens Mar 8 '12 at 16:16
  • 1
    And I'm kind of disillusioned about heroic edits after my last few attempts on cleanup questions. Why bother putting in the effort when people won't give you a straight answer about if it's enough to get the question re-opened or not? There doesn't seem to be enough active users on meta to get something re-opened by votes. In addition, all my efforts got was downvotes, so I figure more efforts will just get me more downvotes. – Rachel Mar 8 '12 at 16:19
  • Thanks, I went back and re-read the original question and noticed it did link to another question which had the set of steps which would be taken on the tags. I just didn't realize that these steps would be taken regardless of what the actual proposed solution was. I still have some concern because I've already seen a bunch of people comment on all the closed questions on our front page from the career-cleanup. Career-questions are easy to explain, but if our front page fills up with closed architecture/design/SDLC questions, its just going to further confuse users. – Rachel Mar 8 '12 at 16:23
  • 2
    First, if you make the heroic edit before the 21st, someone will review every single post on the list and decide if it should be closed (if it should be, flag it, if it is and shouldn't be, flag it). As far as if it's enough, you've been a memeber for a year and half - you should know what a good question looks like. Make it a good question then let the process work. Finally, downvotes on Meta mean nothing. If you want to, use Chat (unfortunately, I can't access Chat at work, so pinging me during the day isn't very helpful) to discuss the question in more detail. – Thomas Owens Mar 8 '12 at 16:25
  • 1
    My attempts at using chat lead to me being told that the decision would wait until March 3rd. The flag was the same. My attempts at asking if edits to a question would be good enough to bring a question back on topic, or asking for suggested edits, were all met with downvotes and most of the answers simply stated that no amount of heroic edits could save the question. Despite receiving some assistance from both moderators and former moderators, nobody would actually tell me if the edits were enough to make the question on-topic and get it reopened or not. – Rachel Mar 8 '12 at 16:41
  • 1
    This all leads to me just giving up on "heroic edits". Ultimately, its a moderator decision on if a question should get reopened or not, and if they think the question isn't a good fit for the site, the question won't get reopened. – Rachel Mar 8 '12 at 16:42
  • @Rachel That's not true. I did reply to one of your Meta questions on one of the deletion candidates, and informed you that the question won't be deleted. So your efforts there where successful. Getting it re-opened is an entirely different matter. – yannis Mar 8 '12 at 16:43
  • 1
    @YannisRizos I don't do "heroic edits" to keep a question closed. They are done in an attempt to re-open questions. – Rachel Mar 8 '12 at 16:48
  • 1
    And since all users only get a single reopen vote for a question's lifetime, and that vote will expire in a few days, I would prefer to get an answer as to if the edits are enough to get question opened or not before I vote to re-open. – Rachel Mar 8 '12 at 16:50
  • @Rachel: Again, thanks for fighting the good fight. IMO: Thomas Owens is giving these types of things a fair shake. – Jim G. Mar 11 '12 at 3:24

The cleanup proposal is part of the Structured Tag Cleanup Initiative, which includes closing, merging and deleting questions:

Step 3: cleaning up the tags, identifying close candidates, and the last call for heroic edits

During the two-week cleanup period, the community will be tasked with doing the following:

Cleaning up the tags: if a question is on-topic for the site, it needs to be revised and retagged with more meaningful tags.

Identifying close candidates: if a tagged question just slipped through the cracks and needs to be closed, it needs to be listed as a close candidate on the cleanup notice.

For any tagged closed question or close candidate, the cleanup period is the last chance to save them with heroic edits: consolidate lists into canonical answers and flag duplicate answers for deletion and substantially improve the quality of the question. If an attempt to save a question has been made, flag the question and list it as a "saved question" on the cleanup notice

STCI is well documented in that question, and I directed you in posting an answer there instead of posting comments in the specific proposal, as it seemed to me that you were contesting whether the initiative in itself had anything to do with weeding out questions that somehow don't belong. I felt it was extremely counter productive to post comments on specific proposal questions when there was a Meta question where you could summarize your concerns, as comments are ephemeral, don't allow for consensus, and are quite less visible than Meta answers.

Going through a tag is a great opportunity to clean up questions that don't belong to the site, for whatever reason. I agree that almost every question under is on topic, however topicality is not the only issue with close worthy questions. Several of the questions that are identified in the closure candidates list fall under the not constructive category, but as I told you if you want to discuss specific questions feel free to ping me in chat.

  • My issue is that you linked to one question, which was asking for tags and solutions, and then implemented a different solution for cleaning up the tag. You said it was because the tag got so many upvotes, however it was both the tag and the solution that got upvotes. And you made me mad by telling me that asking for clarification on why a different solution was implement was "irrelevant" – Rachel Mar 8 '12 at 16:15
  • @Rachel The first sentence on the call for proposals is: "This is a call for proposals for the Structured Tag Cleanup Initiative." - I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that when a proposal is part of STCI, everything in the proposal will follow the generic guidelines of STCI. – yannis Mar 8 '12 at 16:20
  • @Rachel (cont...) And you never actually asked for clarifications, you stated your disagreement. – yannis Mar 8 '12 at 16:24
  • That might be the first sentence, but the question continues to ask for each answer to contain a problem and a solution. I assumed the link was a discussion about the STCI, not something that actually contained a solution that would be implemented in addition to any solutions posted to the question. – Rachel Mar 8 '12 at 16:26
  • And yes, I stated my point of view on something (in this case, disagreement with solution because it didn't match the proposed solution) instead of asking a question directly. I assumed that it would be easily understood by people that I was disagreeing with the question, and that if I was incorrect someone would explain why the solution was different than the proposed solution. I didn't expect someone to tell me to stop posting irrelevant comments, and to link me to a question which I did not immediately see as being related to the question. – Rachel Mar 8 '12 at 16:31
  • @Rachel Now you know. Please consider what I said, and add any comments you have on STCI in an answer there instead of in random comments. And next time you feel "mad", please take a moment to think that there might be something you are missing. – yannis Mar 8 '12 at 16:31
  • @Rachel I told you to stop posting irrelevant comments in chat after I directed you to the STCI Meta question, both in chat and Meta. – yannis Mar 8 '12 at 16:32
  • Alright, and in return, take a minute to try and see things from another person's point of view instead of immediately assuming they understand how you want the site to work and telling them their opinions are irrelevant. – Rachel Mar 8 '12 at 16:35
  • 1
    @Rachel For the last time: You posted a comment that was irrelevant to the question and I directed you to the question where your comment would be relevant. I did not comment on the merits of your opinions, just on the fact that you posted them on the wrong place. – yannis Mar 8 '12 at 16:37
  • I disagree with that. The question was very relevant to the question because it was trying to figure out why the question existed in the first place. Just agree to disagree, and drop the subject. – Rachel Mar 8 '12 at 16:44
  • @Rachel it was trying to figure out why the question existed in the first place Remember that you didn't actually ask a question, you simply stated your disagreement. That's what was irrelevant and it should have been posted as an answer to the proposal Meta question. Next time when you want to ask for clarifications, please consider actually asking for clarifications. – yannis Mar 8 '12 at 16:46

You must log in to answer this question.

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