12

It has been a while since the decision to deprecate music ID has been made, and while the steps have been finalized, there was kind of a blocker that left the progress in limbo:

  1. Edit ID-request close reason to include a note and meta link about it (basically add a link to this meta post)

Thus, we are going to continue the process by updating the close reason for "ID-request".


Currently, the close reason looks like this:

Identification questions are off-topic, because they tend to attract low-quality and low-effort posts. The community has decided to no longer support these questions. Please refer to this meta post for additional details.

The most prominent issue is that the meta post is linking to What we'd like to do about those gosh darn "identification requests" questions which is specifically about identifying anime/manga/other media works only. On the music ID depreciation post itself, it was proposed to add an additional link to that meta post. However, perhaps there is a better proposal to make the close reason more flexible while also being permanent, in case another ID-req scope change happens? This is where we need your input!

Meanwhile, the Community Managers also suggested using this chance to use the new 5-field audience-specific format. To quote from a Meta Stack Exchange post which has gone through this process,

The fields available to us are limited to 500 characters with the exception of the first field, so keep that in mind when proposing/making changes!

The format is as follows:

  1. Brief description (100 characters) - Visible in the close/flag dialog in bold. Should be very succinct, only spanning a couple of words.
  2. Usage guidance - Tells close voters when to use the close reason. Ideally, this is descriptive enough to cover edge cases, and that detail should inspire confidence in close voters that this reason is the right choice under specified circumstances.
  3. Post notice close description - Visible to all users, the post notice description should follow the format "This question was closed because it is ... It is not currently accepting answers."
  4. Post owner guidance - Visible only to the post author, this should explain to the OP why their question was closed, and give detailed information on how to improve their post to get it reopened. Helpful links to the help center would be nice to include.
  5. Privileged user guidance - Visible to users with the cast close votes privilege in the post notice on a post closed with this close reason. This should inform close voters on how best to guide the asker in improving their question or inform them when the question should be reopened.

Feel free to browse some examples from other communities who also have gone through this process to get some idea:


Similar to the one on Meta Stack Exchange, we are going to follow their method:

  • 1 seeded proposal, edit and/or comment on the post for minor changes.
  • Post a new answer if the change is major/significant.

We will conclude the discussion by May 8 if there is no objection. So, let’s get the ball rolling!

1 Answer 1

8

Brief description:

Disallowed type of identification request

Usage guidance:

Use this close reason if a question is a type of identification request that is considered off-topic. Not all ID requests are off-topic, so if you are not sure, please read the linked meta post to distinguish which kinds of ID requests are on-topic or not.

Post notice close description:

This question was closed because it is a type of identification request that is disallowed by the community. It is not currently accepting answers.

Post owner guidance:

Your question looks like a type of identification request that is disallowed by the community. Please read the linked post for the reasoning and alternative resources. If this question is not really an identification request, feel free to edit and clarify the question.

Privileged user guidance:

If you believe this question is not an identification request, help by editing the question to improve it or leave a comment explaining to the post author how to improve their question.


This proposal uses the general FAQ What identification requests are acceptable here? Otherwise, where else can I possibly get helped with it? as the main entry for both announcements for the scope change and also some alternative resources, which hopefully can help the readers and especially the asker more. It is also easier to revise the FAQ in the future in case it is needed.

5
  • 5
    The phrase "asking for [an/a type of] identification request" seems a bit redundant... Such questions aren't asking for identification requests; they are identification requests (i.e. they're asking for help identifying something).
    – V2Blast StaffMod
    May 4 at 14:50
  • @V2Blast thanks for the feedback! Yeah, I agree the original writing was too wordy.
    – Aki Tanaka Mod
    May 4 at 14:58
  • I have implemented the changes as requested, with a slight tweak to the last sentence in the post owner guidance section, so it instead reads: "If this question is not really an identification request, please edit it to clarify the question."
    – JNat StaffMod
    May 19 at 11:34
  • I notice that the linked post doesn't actually explain the reason why (certain) identification questions are disallowed. Is that a hang-over from a previous iteration of the FAQ, and should that be updated or should the boilerplate be changed?
    – ConMan
    May 30 at 23:43
  • @ConMan admittedly, the FAQ was only inspired by our sister site Movie.SE who had created it before, so I just followed the format. However, everyone is free to improve it since it's now linked from the close reason, thus becomes more prominent now. I personally prefer not to modify the close reason because it needs CM to do it.
    – Aki Tanaka Mod
    May 31 at 4:36

You must log in to answer this question.

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