> "Protecting" a question in the way you described would likely result in people claiming a question and then preventing others from answering it in a timely manner
I was being unclear: I didn't mean protecting it from other people to answer - mainly from downvotes and close votes.
That is: I want to say "I think I know what this asker is trying to ask. I'm take responsibility for editing the question to be up to standard and/or mentoring the asker. Regardless - it WILL be up to standard within half an hour so just HOLD OFF with the ninja downvoting".
Answer it if you want. Kill it after I edit it if you want. But don't close it as it stands.
While that may be making that user feel better, it will frustrate every one who is looking for a good question to answer and sees something without any down votes... and sees it to be a poor question.
Close votes only impact the ability to answer a question. If the question is improved while it is closed, it goes back in the reopen review queue and people can then take time to reopen.
A question that is closed before it gets the "try {some code}" answers that are wrong comes out ahead if the person asking the question is able to improve it... at which point it can get reopened through the existing processes.
Poor questions go in the triage queue first. Questions that are deemed that can be improved then go to the help and improvement queue. Those questions are hidden from the general site for some time.
That functionality exists already in those queues. You just have to use it. When those queues fill up, poor questions can indeed spill over into the main site. Go to https://stackoverflow.com/review/triage/stats and review (remember that "needs editing" means that you are capable of editing it into a good question) and https://stackoverflow.com/review/helper/stats
> That functionality exists already in those queues. You just have to use it.
Thanks, there definitely seems to be more to it than I was aware of - and I still thought I was a pretty seasoned user (8k). I always found the entire review system rather opaque and hard to understand even though I processed a lot...
I obviously need to dig deeper, but at the same I think a lot could be done to make the processes more understandable. The queues and question state-machine really could be illustrated more clearly for example (and I’m sure there are endless meta-posts about that too).
> Behind the scenes, a "quality score" is calculated for each question based on an automated analysis of the content. Those that score well are sent immediately to the homepage; those that score poorly will now be sent to Triage. From there, they'll go to one of three places based on human input:
> 1. The homepage, where they can be answered
> 2. The close or moderator flag queue where they can be reviewed and eventually deleted
> 3. A new "Help and Improvement" queue where they can be edited
I was being unclear: I didn't mean protecting it from other people to answer - mainly from downvotes and close votes.
That is: I want to say "I think I know what this asker is trying to ask. I'm take responsibility for editing the question to be up to standard and/or mentoring the asker. Regardless - it WILL be up to standard within half an hour so just HOLD OFF with the ninja downvoting".
Answer it if you want. Kill it after I edit it if you want. But don't close it as it stands.