Return to Answer

• Vote (up/down, close/open) as always. This is not intended to change how the post gets handled, just the user.
• If you're the first to comment, leave a welcoming and friendly comment, thanking them for contributing. Pick one or two of the largest issues you see and have acted on (downvote, hold-vote). Don't offer the "this might be why people are..." comment, say "I voted to hold this because...."
• If you don't have time to comment thusly, don't leave a briefer/terser comment. Someone will come along within five minutes and leave such a comment. We've got a really responsive citizenry. (Can a SEDE expert verify that? I wonder if it's possible to see a distribution of time between first close-vote and first comment, filtered on posts by users with under 200 or so rep?)
• [Great suggestion from @thedarkwanderer] Be a little more-liberal with editing than you might be with an established user. With an established user it's common practice to leave a comment along the lines of "I think this post would be improved by...." With the brand-new user, though, we suggest you go ahead and make the edit, and leave a comment along the lines of "Hi $USER--it seems to me that your use of two systems' terms is confusing, so I cleaned up your post a little to just use terms from $SYSTEM-TAGGED. I hope this helps, and if I've gotten anything wrong you can just [edit] your question again or revert my edit by clicking on "edited $TIME ago."

• Keep your eye on the prize: getting the question good enough to be on-topic/reopened. We can fix the small things later, focus on the big things while closed.
• Trust your fellow citizens to do a good (enough) job,
• Be patient.
• Whether this user ever comes back--whether the post ever gets one more minute of their attention--the site's better off if they leave with a neutral-to=positive impression rather than a negative one.

• Vote (up/down, close/open) as always. This is not intended to change how the post gets handled, just the user.
• If you're the first to comment, leave a welcoming and friendly comment, thanking them for contributing. Pick one or two of the largest issues you see and have acted on (downvote, hold-vote). Don't offer the "this might be why people are..." comment, say "I voted to hold this because...."
• If you don't have time to comment thusly, don't leave a briefer/terser comment. Someone will come along within five minutes and leave such a comment. We've got a really responsive citizenry. (Can a SEDE expert verify that? I wonder if it's possible to see a distribution of time between first close-vote and first comment, filtered on posts by users with under 200 or so rep?)
• [Great suggestion from @thedarkwanderer] Be a little more-liberal with editing than you might be with an established user. With an established user it's common practice to leave a comment along the lines of "I think this post would be improved by...." With the brand-new user, though, we suggest you go ahead and make the edit, and leave a comment along the lines of "Hi $USER--it seems to me that your use of two systems' terms is confusing, so I cleaned up your post a little to just use terms from $SYSTEM-TAGGED. I hope this helps, and if I've gotten anything wrong you can just [edit] your question again or revert my edit by clicking on 'edited $TIME ago.'"

• Keep your eye on the prize: getting the question good enough to be on-topic/reopened. We can fix the small things later, focus on the big things while closed.
• Trust your fellow citizens to do a good (enough) job,
• Be patient.
• Whether this user ever comes back--whether the post ever gets one more minute of their attention--the site's better off if they leave with a neutral-to-positive impression rather than a negative one.

• New user posts a poor question. Downvotes and close-votes come quickly. This is proper: we should close unclear or OT questions quickly, and votes are for sorting useful and not-.
• Lots of users really want to help... three, four, five comments come in very quickly along the lines of "can you provide X, Y, and Z, I think they're the reason you might be getting downvotes" and "can you explain the problem you're having; as it stands this just feels like a discussion prompt." &c. &c. &c. Each individual comment is proper: they're factually correct, they're friendly and they assume good faith, and they--if understood--would help improve the post.
• New user is overwhelmed. Occasionally it gets sorted out, often it contributes to a "this site sucks you're all a bunch of tools screw you" comment, self-vandalism, and rage-quit. In the worst instances, the user's inappropriate comment gets deleted and their post-deletion gets reverted--both actions are proper!--while they're still watching, which only exacerbates the seeming idiocy of what can only be a back-room cabal. (Never mind the fact that occasionally there's evidence of an actual back-room cabal, as chatizens are actively discussing unfolding events in real-time.

It's true that the rage-quitter might not have been a good fit anyway. It's true that the one who ends up working out may never suffer any long-lasting ill will. But the mere fact that there are new users whose first impression is overwhelmed I find problematic.

• Vote (up/down, close/open) as always. This is not intended to change how the post gets handled, just the user.
• If you're the first to comment, leave a welcoming and friendly comment, thanking them for contributing. Pick one or two of the largest issues you see and have acted on (downvote, hold-vote). Don't offer the "this might be why people are..." comment, say "I voted to hold this because...."
• If you don't have time to comment thusly, don't leave a briefer/terser comment. Someone will come along within five minutes and leave such a comment. We've got a really responsive citizenry. (Can a SEDE expert verify that? I wonder if it's possible to see a distribution of time between first close-vote and first comment, filtered on posts by users with under 200 or so rep?)
• Once one or two comments like that are on the post... wait. Let's see if the user's responsive before giving them a ten-item checklist they have to wade through. "Uhh, okay. I'll read the tour, then this meta about one post. Then I'll edit down to one question and post another separately. Now I'm getting two streams of comments! What the what, what?"
• Use the "on hold" terminology: avoid referring to close-votes and closure as such. After all, the change was made explicitly to try and send gentler messages to new users.
• If it appears an experienced user is working productively, restrain the urge to chime in. Even if they say something you disagree with! Once the post's reopened there'll be time for that. Or just ping the tour-guide in chat, if they're a chatizen.
• The moment you get any flak/pushback from a new user, just step away. I, personally, have recently been trying to hold myself to a two-comment per post maximum. Trust that the system will work: if a new user engages in good faith they will get help in a useful way. If they're not they won't. It's not our job to directly shove them from one category to another, it's just our job to be the site-response that prompts their self-training.

• New user posts a poor question. Downvotes and close-votes come quickly. This is proper: we should close unclear or OT questions quickly, and votes are for sorting useful and not-.
• Lots of users really want to help... three, four, five comments come in very quickly along the lines of "can you provide X, Y, and Z, I think they're the reason you might be getting downvotes" and "can you explain the problem you're having; as it stands this just feels like a discussion prompt." &c. &c. &c. Each individual comment is proper: they're factually correct, they're friendly and they assume good faith, and they--if understood--would help improve the post.
• New user is overwhelmed. Sometimes it gets sorted out, sometimes it contributes to a "this site sucks you're all a bunch of tools screw you" comment, self-vandalism, and rage-quit. In the worst instances, the user's inappropriate comment gets deleted and their post-deletion gets reverted--both actions are proper!--while they're still watching, which only exacerbates the seeming idiocy of what can only be a back-room cabal. (Never mind the fact that occasionally there's evidence of an actual back-room cabal, as chatizens are actively discussing unfolding events in real-time.)

It's true that the rage-quitter might not have been a good fit anyway. It's true that the one who ends up working out may never suffer any long-lasting ill will. But the mere fact that there are new users whose first impression is "overwhelmed" I find problematic.

• Vote (up/down, close/open) as always. This is not intended to change how the post gets handled, just the user.
• If you're the first to comment, leave a welcoming and friendly comment, thanking them for contributing. Pick one or two of the largest issues you see and have acted on (downvote, hold-vote). Don't offer the "this might be why people are..." comment, say "I voted to hold this because...."
• If you don't have time to comment thusly, don't leave a briefer/terser comment. Someone will come along within five minutes and leave such a comment. We've got a really responsive citizenry. (Can a SEDE expert verify that? I wonder if it's possible to see a distribution of time between first close-vote and first comment, filtered on posts by users with under 200 or so rep?)
• [Great suggestion from @thedarkwanderer] Be a little more-liberal with editing than you might be with an established user. With an established user it's common practice to leave a comment along the lines of "I think this post would be improved by...." With the brand-new user, though, we suggest you go ahead and make the edit, and leave a comment along the lines of "Hi $USER--it seems to me that your use of two systems' terms is confusing, so I cleaned up your post a little to just use terms from $SYSTEM-TAGGED. I hope this helps, and if I've gotten anything wrong you can just [edit] your question again or revert my edit by clicking on "edited $TIME ago."

• Once a few comments like these are on the post... wait. Let's see if the user's responsive before giving them a ten-item checklist they have to wade through. "Uhh, okay. I'll read the tour, then this meta about one post. Then I'll edit down to one question and post another separately. Now I'm getting two streams of comments! What the what, what?"
• Use the "on hold" terminology: avoid referring to close-votes and closure as such. After all, the change was made explicitly to try and send gentler messages to new users.
• If it appears an experienced user is working productively, restrain the urge to chime in. Even if they say something you disagree with! In a similar vein, if one of the established users working with the new user says something you disagree with, don't argue with them in comments. Nothing is going to sour a new user like two established users yelling at each other, drowning out their question. Either wait for the comments to die down, ping the tour-guide in chat, or wait until the post's reopened to fix minor issues of accuracy.
• The moment you get any flak/pushback from a new user, just step away. I, personally, have recently been trying to hold myself to a two-comment per post maximum. Trust that the system will work: if a new user engages in good faith they will get help in a useful way. If they're not they won't. It's not our job to directly shove them from one category to another, it's just our job to be the site-response that prompts their self-training.

I think these all boil down to a few fundamental principles:

• Keep your eye on the prize: getting the question good enough to be on-topic/reopened. We can fix the small things later, focus on the big things while closed.
• Trust your fellow citizens to do a good (enough) job,
• Be patient.
• Whether this user ever comes back--whether the post ever gets one more minute of their attention--the site's better off if they leave with a neutral-to=positive impression rather than a negative one.

To be clear: in the cases I'm thinking of everybody is saying correct things, saying them nicely, and is well-intentioned. Here's an example (10K only). I cite this example only because it was easy to find--not to chastise the users featured there in any way. (So many of these end up deleted that they're hard to go back and find.)

To be clear: in the cases I'm thinking of everybody is saying correct things, saying them nicely, and is well-intentioned. Here's an example (10K only). I cite this example only because it was easy to find--not to chastise the users featured there in any way. (So many of these end up deleted that they're hard to go back and find.)