2
\$\begingroup\$

This question is on hold because it is overly broad. However I do not believe the question to be overly broad at all. Only the title is wrong (and overly broad). The contents of the question actually has a clearly defined question:

From the text:

I just want to know if adding a DHT to the worker nodes would be feasible? This should allow redundency and high availability out of the box as DHT's are quite good at that.

Which I would translate to the question:

"Can an entity system with DHT be used to span an MMO game over multiple servers to improve the redundancy and availability?"

Or something like that.

So the main question of this meta question is: Should we not alter the title of this question instead of just putting it on hold?

On a side note: I think we're a bit on an on-hold spree here. Way too many questions get put on hold. Yes some are very bad, but questions like the one I refer to only need a small touch-up to be valid. I think putting so many questions on hold, often without letting the poster know why or how to improve their question makes this community very inaccessible.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Edit the question, it will be placed in the reopen queue. \$\endgroup\$ – MichaelHouse Feb 26 '14 at 14:16
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Doh, I didn't know that :), done! \$\endgroup\$ – Roy T. Feb 26 '14 at 15:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ Close votes are supposed to be helpful feedback, and the on hold queue is meant to encourage the feedback to be used. In practice, sometimes that feedback is wasted. Edit away. \$\endgroup\$ – Seth Battin Apr 9 '14 at 17:35
2
\$\begingroup\$

As Byte said, edit the question (or vote for re-open if you feel it's fine without edits) and it will go into the reopen queue. I think that particular question does need edits like you described to be viable, however.

We do have a lot of questions on hold. This isn't ideal, but it's better, I think, than the opposite, which is lots of bad questions with answers reinforcing the perception that those answers are okay.

The "on hold" change to the network was designed, in part, to combat that problem. Questions closed for standard reasons include a disclaimer about why the question was closed, what can be done to improve it, and where the user can go for more information. If you feel any of those reasons are lacking, make a meta post about it (we can change the custom ones).

I'd much rather see more questions put on hold and then edited and reopened than leaving comments suggesting the user edit the question, and then having to deal with the constraints of editing the question and not invalidating existing answers.

This question is a great example of what happens when we let that go. It was an extremely broad question asking for a survey of techniques for 2D lighting. It contained one specific question about image projection, which was appropriate and interesting, so I edited the question but left it open against perhaps my better judgment. In the interim it got two answers, one of which is accepted but does not answer the edited question, but the original. At this point the only recourse is to revert the edit, leave the answers, and close as too broad. Which is a shame.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm inclined to question this judgement. If a question gets an accepted answer, and if that answer isn't overly verbose, then it seems to meet neither of the "too broad" criteria and surely shouldn't have been closed as such? \$\endgroup\$ – Maximus Minimus Mar 5 '14 at 4:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ Acceptance of an answer means nothing in terms of whether or not a question is appropriate for the site, though. And "too broad" doesn't just mean "there's one answer, but it's a book" it can also mean "there are too many answers of any length." \$\endgroup\$ – user1430 Mar 5 '14 at 5:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ Whats wrong with an answer which doesn't get into detail but lists his choices like the one user answered in this thread? I don't see harm done with this question and clearly one found an answer to it. What would be wrong if more posters would post more answers to it? If people want to engage why don't you let them. I really don't get it as I thought this a stack exchange like stackoverflow but it seems it's nowhere near it. \$\endgroup\$ – Coretek Mar 8 '14 at 23:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Coretek your idea of SE is contrary to what is explicitly stated in the help. "If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here." Read: engagement is actively discouraged. SE is about the specific, very useful content. Like Josh described, list questions provide, instead of a really great question and answer, a mediocre list of options. Any site can list off technique names with no substance behind it. SE tries to do something better than that. \$\endgroup\$ – Seth Battin Apr 9 '14 at 16:56

You must log in to answer this question.

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