How should we handle editing questions that are seemingly opinion-based?

Question

I've seen a trend recently that when questions that are seen as opinion-based (or any number of other questionably stackable formats), the community tries to rewrite the question to something we can answer.

While that is commendable, it feels like we may be making an error because by making the question 'stackable', we may be changing what the person is actually asking about. This allows the community to answer, but it doesn't necessarily give an answer relevant to the querent.

How should we be approaching these types of questions as a community - and how can we guide the community to follow this?

What started this?

This recent meta about this this question. While there may be other examples, what I'm trying to focus on is the urge to say "Oh, just ask it this way" rather than drilling down to figure out what they are really trying to ask instead of changing the question to 'fit' our format.

Many times, experienced users see the language used in a question and offer/suggest/edit a change that removes that language so it fits. This can happen before question closure or after - but the problem remains that we instead of working with someone to figure out what they want, we just move straight to change the language to something that fits.

Answer 1

Focus on what the querent wants to ask, even if it means we can't answer it here

When we edit an open question we should always be improving the question that OP asked, but we should not be changing the core of the question. Not, at least without explicit confirmation from OP that the changes are agreeable to them. This means that sometimes there is nothing we can do to "fix" a question in the case that it is clearly POB and OP either does not want to change it or doesn't respond. And that is fine. If someone else has the issue, they can ask it in a way that they think will not be POB.

Close POB questions first and then work with OP if there might be a way to change it

When a question has issues that affect its ability to be answered well, one of the first things we should do is work on getting the question closed so the issues can be worked on. If a question is clearly POB, this should be our first step always.

If someone sees a way to change the question such that it shifts the question a significant amount from what OP was originally asking there are two way to go about this and both involve working with OP before reopening the question:

1. Work with OP in the comments to change the question

If you see a way that a POB question can be salvaged and it involves a potentially significant shift in the focus of the question, pitch the change to OP in the comments and wait for them to respond. If they agree, then someone can make that edit and vote to reopen. If they decline (or don't respond), then we just leave the POB question closed.

The downside to this method is that pitching changes to OP in the comments can be very difficult especially if there is help piling going on and the OP could be overwhelmed and/or confused about what is going on.

2. With the question closed, make the edit you propose and then leave a comment explaining it and asking OP for approval

Another way I've seen this done is to make an edit to a closed question and then ask in a comment if OP agrees with the significant shift in the question. If they agree, reopen the question. If they don't or don't respond, the question should remain closed.

We should never be editing an open question to change it significantly from what OP is asking without their consent. If we did this method to an open question (or open the question without waiting for OP's consent) then answers will start rolling in before OP has a chance to even comment on the edit. This is not something that should happen and ends up potentially not being good for answerers (if changes to the question have to be made later eg) or OP (if changes to the question are not to their liking).

The downsides here are that editing a closed question into a good-looking question often does result in getting the question reopened through the review queue or people passing by that may not realize what work is being done. If you see this happening, I think flagging the question for mod attention would be appropriate. A mod can unilaterally close the question again until we get a response from them.

---

If, at any point OP declines the changes or if they never respond we should leave the POB question closed. If someone else has the same issue that they think they can ask in a way that is not POB, they can freely do so. However, questions should always ask what the OP intends them to ask, even if it means the question cannot be answered here.

Answer 2

It's more important to actually work with querent to determine what their question is and if it's actually a good fit for our format.

Although the process might be slower, it feels like we should be trying to dial in what issue the querent has and then figure out a way, with them, to make the question into a stackable format.

Providing the right 'language' for asking something may change what they are actually asking. I understand that there is a strong desire to answer questions (and to help people!), but I feel like the desire to answer is overriding the need to answer what someone is actually asking.

It may take longer, but we should try and work with the querent to determine what they actually need. If we can answer that need, we can reformat the question to fit. If we can't, then we shouldn't try and force the question through with a change of language - we should direct them to another site where their question can be answered in the right format.

We are not here to answer questions. We are here to answer people. This means making sure questions are clear so that we are providing the person with the answer they are trying to find.

But how do we get the community to follow this?

This is something I don't know, other than using comments to try and help the querent understand what they are trying to ask instead of recommendations on language changes that 'fit' our format.