5
\$\begingroup\$

Reference:

Does natural armor stack with unarmored defense?

In this question, there were initially two questions. The question was edited to wholesale remove the second one- but not by the initial poster.

I personally would have just VTC on the basis of being unclear, and commented... so it struck me that the question had been edited so drastically. Should we be making assumptions of this nature as to the intention of the poster? Or just VTC as unclear?

| |
\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

There's no should. We can do it either way, edit or close. It's a pretty good course of action to edit questions like this, though, or at least not a bad one.

We could just close the question and ask the author to pick a question and post the others separately, and often do. Sometimes however if we're clearly going to go down that route, it speeds up the process to just pick one out for the asker (usually the highest quality of the bunch, i.e. the one most likely to stay open) and edit out the others, and give the asker guidance on where to go from here: post the edited-out questions separately, here's how you can check the edit history and retrieve them, here's some improvements you might want to make to those whilst you're busy doing this.

It saves time and several close and reopen votes (and the asker from experiencing getting a question closed in the first place, which a lot of people don't like), and saves us from possibly clearing up a mess if someone wants to jump the gun and answer all of the questions at once, and possibly thus leaving the asker feeling no need to take action. Also, it gives the asker (and us!) one still-open good question, whether or not the asker decides they want to take action.

If the asker rolls it back, we go ahead with the close process. If all the questions are bad quality and there isn't one to pick out that's likely to stay open, it's not worth doing the edit and the question should just get closed with avenues for improvement suggested.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ +1 show judgement and do whatever seems like the quickest path to success in the specific situation. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk - SE stop being evil Dec 23 '14 at 19:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ +1 for avoiding closing questions when possible \$\endgroup\$ – Please stop being evil Jan 4 '15 at 1:18
3
\$\begingroup\$

There are two cases here.

  1. There are two questions, but one is handled well another place

  2. There are either more than two questions or the second question is not handled well on site.

In the first case, it's absolutely correct to edit out the second question and point them to the other post.

In the second case, it should be closed and the OP needs to narrow it to one question, and then ask additional questions.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ That was what struck me on this one... the edited question is now a duplicate, even though the second part is not. \$\endgroup\$ – Chuck Dee Dec 23 '14 at 15:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ @wraith808 it's not though. Different mechanics in play. \$\endgroup\$ – wax eagle Dec 23 '14 at 15:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ah... Ok, I get it now. \$\endgroup\$ – Chuck Dee Dec 23 '14 at 15:42
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The first case is exactly why I edited it. The second part was a duplicate of an existing question, so I edited it out and left a link for it. \$\endgroup\$ – Miniman Dec 23 '14 at 22:03

You must log in to answer this question.

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