This meta post led me to the question at hand of which I made several observations including:
- The question had 18 up votes
- The question was closed (unilaterally by a mod)
- At some point in time there were 3 close votes on the question but (unless I am mistaken with how / when users show up to have voted to close the question) there were no close votes cast in its current state
- The question had many answers - some were good with many up votes others were bad with negative scores
- The question had 2 updates amended to it which served as a dialogue between the OP and people who answered the question
After reading the question, comments on the question, and the meta post I had come up with my own conclusions on the question:
- The question deserved to be closed as it stood
- The question was attracting bad answers which ultimately lead to its closing
Given the number of up votes, it would appear to me that this is the type of subjective question that the community likes to see asked, and subsequently answer.
My attempt to salvage the question
My personal analysis of the question is that the two amended updates were by far the biggest problem with the question. These updates served as dialogue between the answers the OP was receiving and how that user would like answers to be catered. This ultimately lead to answers addressing the OP's specific needs and "bad subjective" (in my opinion) additional questions that were added as opposed to the "good subjective" (again, in my opinion and perhaps the 18 users that voted up) original question.
My general thought process for salvaging the question would be as follows:
- Remove the updates to restore the original intent that likely drew in the up votes as well as the good answers. This would bring us back to a good, albeit poorly written, subjective question
- If the question was not reopened effort would then be taken to actually improve the question to be higher quality and to advocate needs of answers often found in good subjective types of questions
Given the time I just wanted to get the ball rolling on this and see how the community reacted, though ideally I would have addressed both items at the same time so that multiple edits did not have to occur. That said, I completed step one above. I removed the two updates leaving the top section intact to see where things would go.
The process ended much sooner than expected.
My edit was rejected with the following, rather unexpected, reason by both users who reviewed the edit:
This edit changes too much in the original post; the original meaning or intent of the post would be lost.
I don't have the privileges to review edits so I don't know what canned options are available so maybe this just comes down to having limited choices when rejecting edits... I can only speculate. Needless to say I was certainly glad I didn't take the effort to complete step 2 with my original edit because that would have changed the original post even further making the close reason seem slightly more valid - but with the edit that was made the reject reason is a bit baffling to me since I edited the question down to the original question.
Is there anything that can be done to save the question?
At this point I don't know exactly what to do. I thought that my opinion on the matter reflected that of the community, given the number of up votes the question and answers had so I made an effort to begin turning (I'll admit the work wasn't 100% complete) this into one of the elusive "good subjective" questions we always hear about and I did not succeed in this attempt. Is there something that can be done to salvage this question?
I realize this is a specific question about a specific question but advice / insight on improving quality of edits that attempt to turn bad questions into good questions (subjective or otherwise) in the future is appreciated as well.