The FAQ doesn't seem to capture the moderators sense of what is in scope and what isn't

I've recently seen two questions that on LIS Stack that moderators felt were not in scope, but the "rules" behind these decisions are not captured anywhere in the FAQ (eg. the position on "shopping questions" and the position on "list questions"). This makes it difficult (particularly for new users) to understand the scope for this site, and work within it's rules. Having a question closed due to scoping issues that are not described anywhere can be somewhat discouraging for new users. This is not good for a site in beta, which is looking to build it's user base.

The current situation is leading to confusion and inconsistency. So for example, this question is a "list question" according to Jonsca, and was turned into a "community wiki". But this question received no such treatment, but as far as I can see, is no different in requiring some degree of list in its answers.

Is it possible for the moderators to specify exactly what the scope and rules are in the FAQ? At the moment the only real detail reads as follows...

You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.

...which doesn't really give a lot of guidance.

Paul Wheatley

• support
• moderation

Comments

• Ashley Nunn: We are planning to revamp the parts of the FAQ that we as moderators can edit in the near future, which will help make these sorts of things clearer.
• Paul Wheatley: Thanks Ashley, that would be really useful
• jonsca: I turned that into a Community Wiki because it had some decent content in the answer, but really wasn't a good question, for the "list" reason that you describe. Ideally it would have been closed, but I wanted to see if we could keep it. As Ashley has said, we're actively grinding away at all of these issues and will attempt to come to some resolution about them very soon. So, we both sincerely appreciate that you started this post, as I think there is a lot to talk about surrounding the topics/appropriate questions and any overarching philosophies.
• Paul Wheatley: Hi Jonsca, I think you missed the point I was making. I referenced two questions that seem to have met with different fates, but I don't really know as I have no idea what the rules are that you are implementing. Until you and Ashley write down what those rules are, its very difficult for anyone else to understand them or to have a discussion about them.
• jonsca: I get your point. I see those as being two very different questions. Someone who is a preservation expert can answer about the risks of the PDF in a succinct manner, and it may be a "list", but not in the sense of "What could I eat for breakfast?" The downfall of the second question is in the `Anyone want to share the skill sets that you think they should have?` which I could answer with "keyboarding, tenacity, the ability to digest coffee, and comfortable shoes". In other words, based on the parameters of the question, *anything goes*.
• jonsca: So, thereby someone on google in 2014 might do a search on "risks of using PDF in digital preservation" and pop up your question, and go "ah-hah!", whereas someone might be searching for information on skill sets for preservationists, see my answer about shoes (which is valid, right? because that's what I think someone should have) and split to another site.
• jonsca: Again, the Community Wiki aspect is a bit murky, as most sites have dumped it, and I personally can't stand it, but rather than torching the potentially useful info that was there, I elected to preserve it. We're in a bit of a pinch, as we don't want to close every question, but there's no way that anyone is going to meet us halfway if we don't start somewhere.
• jonsca: (but all in all, yes, we need to have a concrete FAQ. Some aspects of standards of the site are derived from it being a member of SE, and the hope with the commitment phase of the proposal was to get and retain some active members from other sites to be able to hit the ground running with good, quality questions. Many of us cut our teeth on Stack Overflow where most of these principles are second nature, and @AshleyNunn and I have been trying to lead more by example than jam rules into people, but I suppose it's going to have to come down to some concrete rules at some point)