Take the 2-minute tour ×
Moderators Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for community managers, administrators, and moderators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

On Stack Exchange, users gain valuable Internet points (reputation) when their questions or answers are upvoted and lose (fewer) points when they're downvoted. This creates an incentive to try to answer any question where you can expect a net-positive change in score.

Some questions are really, clearly not good fits for the site -- they're off-topic, or they don't provide nearly enough detail, or they're otherwise pretty obviously on the road to being put on hold. Once a question is put on hold no new answers can be added until the question is edited (if it can be) and reopened. Questions are put on hold (and reopened) by user vote or by moderators.

On one site that I'm involved with, we have a widespread pattern of users rushing to answer questions that are, soon thereafter, put on hold. Sometimes these answers give good advice -- but it's advice about things that shouldn't have been asked on that site in the first place. Because it's good advice, it gets voted up even after the question is put on hold.

Sometimes several hours elapse between when such a question is asked and when it's put on hold, but I've seen this happen in under 15 minutes so I don't think "close faster" is an option. Our community is reasonably diligent here already, but also pretty popular, so stuff will get through.

Moderators (or, sometimes, users or automated processes) can delete these questions eventually, but I'm not looking for ways to clean it up -- I'm looking for a way to get users to not answer doomed questions in the first place. I realize it's their time to waste, but sometimes this situation creates drama when a question is deleted and people who answered it lose reputation points. Secondarily, it's harder to edit a question that's been put on hold to fix it if there are already answers; we try not to invalidate existing answers, though in some cases we do that anyway and edit the affected answers.

How can we get users to set aside their own possible reputation gain and instead vote to put on hold questions that do not fit in their current form? I am looking for a behavioral solution, not a technical one.

share|improve this question
This almost sounds like it should be a question on Meta.StackExchange since it's a question about SE itself. –  Powerlord Aug 18 at 20:24
It could fit on MSE, but I think it's on-topic here too. I decided to ask here because even though my problem is on an SE site, similar problems may exist on other platforms and I'd like to take advantage of the broader experience that users here bring. –  Monica Cellio Aug 18 at 20:41

5 Answers 5

up vote 10 down vote accepted

I realize it's their time to waste, but sometimes this situation creates drama when a question is deleted and people who answered it lose reputation points.

That's their fault. Make it clear on your site somewhere (meta, perhaps?) so you can reference it when they get mad and it gets deleted.


  • Make it clear somewhere that this behavior isn't allowed. You can't really punish them for this, but let them know that the rep will be lost when the question is deleted. When you post this, make sure the post gets a lot of screen time.
  • For SE, downvote the question. It won't cost you anything, and it'll make it easier to get it auto-deleted to remove that rep.
  • If you see a particular user routinely doing this, don't be afraid to tell them. No need to throw them under the bus, but just make a simple comment on that they'll probably lose that reputation.

<stack-exchangeism>... for the users who upvote, not post.

As always, votes are the property of the user so they can do whatever they want with them unless it is fraudulent. Also, new users may not know about if a question is on topic or not.

In fact, the tooltip of upvote says this:

This answer is useful.

People will upvote if they like the answer no matter if the question is on topic.


share|improve this answer
This is a great answer. However, the one part I disagree with is thinking of this as punitive. SE is designed so that good behaviors are encouraged while not-so-good behaviors are discouraged. I think of this strategy more as community design rather than an authoritarian, punitive principle. Hope this helps clarify, and thanks for posting this! –  jmort253 Aug 24 at 20:00
Oops, I guess you didn't really say "think of this as punishment, muahahah." I misread. Still, I'll leave my comment as I think it's important to highlight that such decisions should guide not punish. –  jmort253 Aug 24 at 20:01

The best bet is to remove the personal benefit to the bad behavior. If you reward people for a bad behavior, they will continue to do it even if it is bad. In order to prevent it, remove the incentive and, if necessary, add a penalty.

Removing point gain from a post that was very clearly not a good fit for the site removes the incentive to post since they realize there is a good chance they will just be wasting their time.

If the problem persists, then making it so that answers on downvoted questions would actually share the point loss of the downvotes on the question (if it is closed for being off-topic) might make sense to make it actually hurt the user to answer really off-topic questions.

share|improve this answer

From behavioural point of view, as long as the people are getting the positive feedback, they will continue their behaviour, with even increased strength.

They answer off-topic question, they get some reputation, they continue doing that in the future.

The best solution, in my opinion, is to eventually erase the off-topic questions together with the answers and the positive reputation for the people who have posted it. Then you have the negative feedback. The people finally understand, that answering such questions is a waste of time - they initially get some reputation, but eventually lose it. It's better to make more effort and answer better questions.

Delete only those questions which are literally off-topic, so that the answers are off-topic too (example: opinion-based and resource-request questions). If question is widely speaking on-topic, but "only" terribly written, it's still possible for it to get some great answers, so don't punish users for answering them.

Of course, don't expect immediate effect. It will depend on how quickly the questions will be deleted.

share|improve this answer
"Of course, don't expect immediate effect. It will depend on how quickly the questions will be deleted." and if the people is willing to change. –  Braiam Aug 22 at 1:35

Perhaps you should not be "looking for a way to get users to not answer doomed questions in the first place." Some of the most useful questions and answers on here are ones that I have seen that were ultimately closed.

Of course many are closed that should be closed, but some are closed due to some "technical violation" while they are still able to convey lots of useful information to users of the site.

I think that the points system is the technical solution, and it can be tweaked if really needed. I don't think that a behavioral solution really exists. It's just like some people will choose to do good and make $20K working at a non-profit, while most people will choose to do work and make $80K per year working for a corporation. It's unrealistic to expect people to do things against their own economic self interests. That applies if the economy is based on dollars or points.

share|improve this answer
I didn't mean to suggest that all closed questions are doomed; many are quite useful for way-finding (duplicates), or because they were on-topic once and have valuable answers (historical interest), and so on. I'm talking about the class of questions where you can look at it and say "well, that's going to get shut down quickly" -- because it's so off-topic, or a rant without a real question, or "bad subjective". –  Monica Cellio Sep 2 at 2:03

The only thing I would like to add to the other answers is that it seems for some reason that members of your site have a fundamental disagreement about what is on/off topic (if they thought it was off topic, they wouldn't be answering these questions).

Perhaps instead of unilaterally closing these questions, the moderators could engage these users (in chat or in meta) to discover why they think these questions are on topic. The topic could then be redefined with their feedback, or these users could be reeducated on what is the topic for the site.

share|improve this answer
worth keeping in mind that there are categories of questions that simply don't fit Stack Exchange Q&A model, no matter how one defines topics: "We already tried supporting those questions, we even gave them their own site. Sadly, it didn't work out..." –  gnat 14 hours ago
@gnat that "there are categories of questions that simply don't fit SE Q&A model" doesn't change the fact that the two groups appear to disagree about what is on topic, and THAT concern should be addressed directly. –  Zaralynda 14 hours ago
I see. Fit or not, differences in opinions would better be clarified as much as possible, that makes sense –  gnat 14 hours ago

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.