Could we make it a rule that any question asked in good faith will be allowed to stay open for at least 48 hours? This would give honest retrocomputing-related questions that don't adhere to Stack Exchange's strict rules enough time to (1) provide something useful to the person who submitted the question, (2) without littering the site long-term. I believe goal (2) should not be allowed to override (1) and I think this would be a good compromise.

  • 1
    I share your wish to see more questions answered than closed (I'm typically reluctant to vote to close a question, and will usually edit it or skip), but I don't feel this is a good mechanism to do it. – Kaz Jul 28 at 22:15
  • If it's an RC.SE related question, why do you assume it gets closed? And what does 'good faith' has to do with that - beside, I think, that it's safe to assume every question is asked in good faith. So basically you're saying on topic questions should not be closed - which AFAIK is the very basic rule for RC.SE, isn't it? So what's the logic of this request? – Raffzahn Jul 29 at 2:12
  • @Raffzahn Are you saying that retrocomputing questions never get closed here? – snips-n-snails Jul 29 at 3:04
  • @snips-n-snails There are many reasons to close a question, being about retro computing isn't one of them. But instead of asking what seams a rhetoric question, wouldn't you mind to add some content to your original question, especially what it's about and what the logic is you (want to) apply? – Raffzahn Jul 29 at 8:41


There are many, many issues with this, including:

  • What's good faith?
  • If a question is answerable, why should we be trying to close it?
  • If a question isn't (easily) answerable, we have to be able to put it on-hold before answers come in so it can be fixed.

It also doesn't provide clear benefits:

  • If people still want to help the asker of an off-topic / shopping recommendation question, comments are still available.

It'd also provide a bad example:

  • If all questions are allowed, then all questions are allowed.
  • If not all questions are allowed, then which close-worthy questions are temporary-exemption-worthy?

I'm struggling to articulate why this is a bad idea, but… just no. Really, no.

  • "If a question isn't (easily) answerable, we have to be able to put it on-hold before answers come in" appears to contradict itself. – snips-n-snails Jul 28 at 23:26
  • @snips-n-snails It's badly worded; I've never had to put this into words before. (I feel like this is an exam, and I'm not passing. ☺) If it's too broad, we need to put it on-hold in order to narrow it down before answers come in, or else we'll have answers that don't answer the question. – wizzwizz4 Jul 29 at 10:59
  • I think even those answers have value. – snips-n-snails Jul 29 at 15:59
  • @snips-n-snails They do have value – but to different questions. If a question is narrowed so the answers no longer answer it, the answers shouldn't be there; they should be on different questions instead. Asking multiple, specific question is better than asking one broad one. – wizzwizz4 Jul 29 at 20:45
  • Even today, if an answer doesn't answer a question, we write a comment and/or downvote it, and the person who submitted the answer can modify or delete it. Anyway, earlier you asked, "If a question is answerable, why should we be trying to close it?" Here's a question that could easily be answered by a person with the necessary inside information, and yet there are 4 votes to close it: retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/11838/… – snips-n-snails Jul 29 at 22:58
  • @snips-n-snails And three review votes to keep it open – the maximum the system permits. You haven't picked an uncontroversial example there. – wizzwizz4 Jul 30 at 10:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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