2

When flagging a question, the description for 'very low quality' is as follows:

This question has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.

Since, via an edit, almost ANY change can be made, presumably there was an intent to this line which is not immediately clear. Does unlikely to be salvageable by editing mean unsalvageable through spelling corrections? Through a rethink of the concept implementation? A rethink of the overall concept? What does 'unsalvageable' mean to you?

1

If it would take longer to clean up the question than it would to answer it, or if the question is messy enough that it's unclear just how you would clean it up, I would consider it unsalvageable.

If all else fails, flag it and leave a comment regarding why the question needs to be fixed. If the OP doesn't clean it up on their own (and no one is willing to invest the time it would take to clean it up on their behalf), it'll end up closed.

0

I think this would be a little subjective, but I also think that is fine because as many opportunities for community involvement that involves common sense.

I would say that to bother with editing:

  1. Question must be meaningful (you need to understand what is asked to work with it).
  2. Question should be interesting (it is better to improve questions that people will find useful/interesting).
  3. Question volume to edit should be reasonable (there are better and more interesting things to do than tearing through three pages of crazy text).

So question becomes closer to unsalvageable as its' text volume growth and meaningful payload decreases.

You must log in to answer this question.

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