Return to Answer

I agree.

It's crazy how the part "or post a new one" in

You can edit the question or post a new one

implicitly implies that someone can or even should repost the same horrific content of the orginial question as new question again without even changing anything because of the OR'ed "edit the question".

We definitely need some change in here.

The suggestion to posting a new question is IMHO also wrong. A question rather should be edited than to abandoned and posting a new fixed one instead.

I wonder why they even implemented such wording once? Maybe because of a susceptible reopening principle? If yes, then we also need to discuss about that.

Also a problem I see very very often is that many new user don't understand how closing and most of all reopening works and that reopening is even possible.

That's also the reason why some users with closed questions, doesn't feel to improve their questions after they have been closed because they think it would have no reason anymore.

We need to teach them more about that if they fixed their question appropriately, the question is likely to get reopened.

My suggestion:

"You can edit the question so that your question can get reopened. Posting the same content within a new question without any significant change will get the post closed again."

We could save many time and effort for anyone at the refuse collection with this change.

I agree.

It's crazy how the part "or post a new one" in

You can edit the question or post a new one

implicitly implies that someone can or even should repost the same horrific content of the orginial question as new question again without even changing anything because of the OR'ed "edit the question".

We definitely need some change in here.

The suggestion to posting a new question is IMHO also wrong. A question rather should be edited than to abandoned and posting a new fixed one instead.

I wonder why they even implemented such wording once? Maybe because of a susceptible reopening principle? If yes, then we also need to discuss about that.

Also a problem I see very very often is that many new user don't understand how closing and most of all reopening works and that reopening is even possible.

That's also the reason why some users with closed questions, doesn't feel to improve their questions after they have been closed because they think it would have no reason anymore.

We need to teach them more about that if they fixed their question appropriately, the question is likely to get reopened.

My suggestion:

"You can edit the question so that your question can get reopened. Posting the same content in a new question without any significant change will get the post closed again."

We could save many time and effort for anyone at the refuse collection with this change.

I agree.

It's crazy how the part "or post a new one" in

You can edit the question or post a new one

implicitly implies that someone can or even should repost the same horrific content of the orginial question as new question again without even changing anything because of the OR'ed "edit the question".

We definitely need some change in here.

The suggestion to posting a new question is IMHO also wrong. A question rather should be edited than to abandoned and posting a new fixed one instead.

I wonder why they even implemented such wording once? Maybe because of a susceptible reopening principle? If yes, then we also need to discuss about that.

Also a problem I see very very often is that many new user don't understand how closing and most of all reopening works and that reopening is even possible.

That's also the reason why some users with closed questions, doesn't feel to improve their questions after they have been closed because they think it would have no reason anymore.

We need to teach them more about that if they fixed their question appropriately, the question is likely to get reopened.

My suggestion:

"You can edit the question so that your question can get reopened. Posting the same content within a new question again without any significant change will get the post closed again."

We could save many time and effort for anyone at the refuse collection with this change.

I agree.

It's crazy how the part "or post a new one" in

You can edit the question or post a new one

implicitly implies that someone can or even should repost the same horrific content of the orginial question as new question again without even changing anything because of the OR'ed "edit the question".

We definitely need some change in here.

The suggestion to posting a new question is IMHO also wrong. A question rather should be edited than to abandoned and posting a new fixed one instead.

I wonder why they even implemented such wording once? Maybe because of a susceptible reopening principle? If yes, then we also need to discuss about that.

Also a problem I see very very often is that many new user don't understand how closing and most of all reopening works and that reopening is even possible.

That's also the reason why some users with closed questions, doesn't feel to improve their questions after they have been closed because they think it would have no reason anymore.

We need to teach them more about that if they fixed their question appropriately, the question is likely to get reopened.

My suggestion:

"You can edit the question so that your question can get reopened. Posting the same content within a new question without any significant change will get the post closed again."

We could save many time and effort for anyone at the refuse collection with this change.

I agree.

It's crazy how the part "or post a new one" in

You can edit the question or post a new one

implicitly implies that someone can or even should repost the same horrific content of the orginial question as new question again without even changing anything because of the OR'ed "edit the question".

We definitely need some change in here.

The suggestion to posting a new question is IMHO also wrong. A question rather should be edited than to abandoned and posting a new fixed one instead.

I wonder why they even implemented such wording once? Maybe because of a susceptible reopening principle? If yes, then we also need to discuss about that.

Also a problem I see very very often is that many new user don't understand how closing and most of all reopening works.

We need to teach them more about that if they fixed their question appropriately, the question is likely to get reopened.

My suggestion:

"You can edit the question so that your question can get reopened. Reposting the same question without any change will get the post closed again."

We could save many time and effort for anyone at the refuse collection with this change.

I agree.

It's crazy how the part "or post a new one" in

You can edit the question or post a new one

implicitly implies that someone can or even should repost the same horrific content of the orginial question as new question again without even changing anything because of the OR'ed "edit the question".

We definitely need some change in here.

The suggestion to posting a new question is IMHO also wrong. A question rather should be edited than to abandoned and posting a new fixed one instead.

I wonder why they even implemented such wording once? Maybe because of a susceptible reopening principle? If yes, then we also need to discuss about that.

Also a problem I see very very often is that many new user don't understand how closing and most of all reopening works and that reopening is even possible.

That's also the reason why some users with closed questions, doesn't feel to improve their questions after they have been closed because they think it would have no reason anymore.

We need to teach them more about that if they fixed their question appropriately, the question is likely to get reopened.

My suggestion:

"You can edit the question so that your question can get reopened. Posting the same content within a new question again without any significant change will get the post closed again."

We could save many time and effort for anyone at the refuse collection with this change.