8

The current close vote reason for help with implementation is as follows:

If you're asking for help with implementation, please include what you've tried and why it didn't work with screenshots. Please edit your post with what your desired results are, what resources you referenced and why those didn't work. See this meta post for discussion and see this post on how to ask a good question.

And the font-ID/critique one is this (emphasis not mine):

Your question appears to be incomplete. More detail is needed for relevant and focused answers to be provided for these types of questions. Please review our font-identification or critique requirements and provide the missing details, so that your question can be answered.

Both links in the implementation close reason have pretty terrible text content. The text of the link in the font-ID/critique close reason is better, but it can be improved as well.

Can we please have these improved slightly?


For the first one, I recommend:

If you're asking for help with implementation, please include what you've tried and why it didn't work along with screenshots. Please edit your post with what your desired results are, what resources you referenced, and why those didn't work. See this meta post for discussion and also see How do I ask a good question?.

(note that I added along in the first sentence and an Oxford comma in the second sentence in addition to changing the links)

For the second, I recommend changing the emphasis (the bold doesn't match the styling of the other links) and the text content of the links slightly:

Your question appears to be incomplete. More detail is needed for relevant and focused answers to be provided for these types of questions. Please review our font-identification or critique requirements and provide the missing details so that your question can be answered.

(note that I removed an incorrect comma in the last sentence)

These changes fix some English mistakes, allows easier clicks on the links, and helps users better understand what they are clicking on.

3/14/16 - Still hoping to see these changes made

  • 1
    I do not mind improving what we have but be aware there is a character limit. If I recall that limit is 400 characters and I believe you've gone over that. – DᴀʀᴛʜVᴀᴅᴇʀ Aug 6 '15 at 18:52
  • 2
    My attempt at shortening the first to under 400: When asking for help with implementation, please include screenshots and describe what you've tried. Please edit your post to include what your desired results are, resources you referenced, and why those didn't work. See this discussion and also How do I ask a good question? for info. – JohnB Aug 6 '15 at 19:05
  • @Darth_Vader The links can be shortened some, I added my user number to the end to see if anyone would notice ;) In any case, I'd like to see some of these minor changes made - any that can be – Zach Saucier Aug 7 '15 at 4:36
  • I know they can be shortened. If you check the urls in the close reasons currently you will see we shortened them and still almost went over the 400 character limit.. im up for improving the reasons but if you cant get a clear close reason with useful links under 400 characters there is no reason we should try editing them – DᴀʀᴛʜVᴀᴅᴇʀ Aug 7 '15 at 4:40
  • Why not entirely remove the font ID questions. All the "what have you tried" are pretty much the same and 99% of these questions get put on hold, especially when a certain "type" of designer ask them. – go-junta Aug 7 '15 at 5:29
  • I noticed the user referral, we'd remove those for implementation :) – JohnB Aug 7 '15 at 13:37
  • @go-me we spent a lot of time deliberating on what to do with font id questions. See here and here for details. In summary: there was not a clear consensus on what to do with them, so we instead opted for stricter rules regarding them as a compromise. – JohnB Aug 7 '15 at 13:37
  • I hate Oxford commas :P – Vincent Mar 16 '16 at 10:43
  • @Vincent Obligatory comic – Zach Saucier Mar 16 '16 at 12:53
7

These seem like small, harmless changes that are slight improvements and bring no harm, so I see no reason not to just do this.

The first one is definitely an improvement. Linking the word this is, in my book, a faux pas in the same league as <blink> or Comic Sans. It makes text harder to skim. Zach's new version is easy to skim.

The second one is a small improvement in consistency that brings no harm.

Why not just do it?

  • Anyone is welcome to create a Q&A and let the community vote if they wish the improvements to be made. We do have a cap of 400 characters but we would be happy to do them. – DᴀʀᴛʜVᴀᴅᴇʀ Mar 15 '16 at 14:24
  • Vote on the community post to show your approval or disapproval! :) – Zach Saucier Mar 15 '16 at 17:38
3

Vote on this answer to approve/disapprove this request!

For the first (pulling from JohnB's comment):

When asking for help with implementation, please include screenshots and describe what you've tried. Please edit your post to include what your desired results are, resources you referenced, and why those didn't work. See this discussion and also How do I ask a good question? for info.

For the second (only URL change from the OP)

Your question appears to be incomplete. More detail is needed for relevant and focused answers to be provided for these types of questions. Please review our font-identification or critique requirements and provide the missing details so that your question can be answered.

Both are under 400 characters.

You must log in to answer this question.

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