Can we stop closing questions that have become obsolete as "Too Localized"?

Question

After some recent discussion in chat, it came up that we have been closing questions as "Too Localized" because they no longer apply to the game they are about, even though they were good questions when they were asked. Some examples:

• Will monsters spawn on top of trees?
• How short can a minecart booster be and still be effective?
• Can you be woken up by a creeper in prerelease versions of Minecraft?
• Why do Minecraft double doors behave the way they do with redstone?
• Sanctum - can't shoot strawberry fish

I can't find any that are not about Minecraft, but that is probably because it is the best example for obsolescence in a widely played game.

Joel's answer on MSO says

"Too localized" should be used for very tiny geographic regions or vanishingly small periods of time. It is used when a question cannot possibly be answered because nobody participating in the site is likely to know the answer, and even if it were answered, nobody else would care.

These questions do not fit any of those criteria. They were questions that were generally useful and were completely answerable. The first example question was at +19 with a +23 answer and 3K views, so quite a few people found it helpful. It was also open for over a year, so it was not limited to a small period of time.

Joel also gives a more specific example that is relevant to this situation:

A question that only applies to a certain build of software. For example, a developer discussing a bug that only occurs in a certain version of the .NET framework. Sure, that version is going to be replaced with another version, which might fix the bug, but we're still going to answer it!

I would say that the right policy here is, instead of closing the question, update the answer or add a new answer, even if that answer just says

This is no longer an issue as of update X due to Y. The thing the question asked about now works like Z.

and also update the accepted answer to say something like "This information is out of date as of update X. See the new answer for more current information"

This would help keep all information about some particular problem in one place, as we prefer, and it is a more correct solution.

Answer 1

Updating the answer to bring it up to date with the current release is the correct course of action. Someone might be running a very old version of Minecraft (due to compatibility with mods, or to preserve a certain world, etc.), and we shouldn't be closing these questions. You wouldn't close a question about an older version of Python on SO.

Where possible, update the question to reference the version at time of asking (this can be deduced from the posting date), and update the answer to reference the latest version, or to mention when the behaviour was changed.

The same applies to other games where behaviour changes with newer versions/patches.

Personally, I don't understand the motivation for closing in the first place. Closure is not a final state, but a kind of purgatory before deletion. Deletion is definitely wrong - all the rep earned by people posting good answers that just happen to be out of date would be lost for a start.

If these posts are attracting spam, then just protect them. Closing achieves nothing.

Answer 2

Stack Exchange isn't the Roach Motel: problems (and their solutions) can become obsolete. If they don't serve a purpose anymore, we shouldn't keep them around: we don't make the internet a better place by keeping stale and obsolete information around as a honeypot for googlers.

But I think there's a difference to be made between questions that are still applicable that have obsolete answers and questions that are just no longer applicable at all.¹

These questions, I think, fall into the former category:

• Will monsters spawn on top of trees?
• Can you be woken up by a creeper in prerelease versions of Minecraft?
• Why do Minecraft double doors behave the way they do with redstone?

The questions still make sense (even if they now happen to be a little trivial or obscure) and can be updated with the latest information about the mechanic.²

On the other hand, "How short can a minecart booster be and still be effective?", and the recently deleted "How do I set up a minecart booster?", are no longer applicable to Minecraft. It was an exploitation of a bug in the game that no Minecraft variant has anymore. People who still have problems with boosters are running versions of Minecraft—a game that updates itself—that are over a year old. It's a contrived, extremely localized problem whose correct solution is "update the game".

However, putting aside what we might consider relevant or what we might think users would find useful in the future, we have some ability to determine whether a question is still useful by looking at voting activity as displayed on the question's timeline (for non-deleted questions) and anonymous post feedback.

Looking at the timeline for all four non-deleted questions:

• "Will monsters spawn on top of trees" has been getting light voting activity, even months after closure.
• "Can you be woken up by a creeper in Minecraft?" stopped getting votes in March, right after closure.
• "Why do Minecraft double doors behave the way they do with redstone?" stopped getting votes in November, and was closed months later.
• "How short can a minecart booster be and still be effective?" stopped getting votes in November as well.

We can't see the timeline for deleted questions, but "How do I set up a minecart booster?" is on page two of our most overrated questions based on anonymous feedback.

Looking at this data, it seems OrigamiRobot is right and the only one that's still useful is "Will monsters spawn on trees?". Not surprisingly, it's the only one that's managed to get reopened since this discussion started.

Somewhat of an aside, but Fredly mentioned the following:

Personally, I don't understand the motivation for closing in the first place. Closure is not a final state, but a kind of purgatory before deletion. Deletion is definitely wrong - all the rep earned by people posting good answers that just happen to be out of date would be lost for a start.

I agree that closing a question is not meant to be its final state, but deletion is one of the appropriate endgames for questions that have no value to the site anymore. Rep loss isn't a problem: if the question's been around for 60 days and the posts affected have a 3 score or higher, deletion does not reset the reputation on the post.

^{Note 1: I'm ignoring the Sanctum question that was just added namely because it's still open but also because I don't know enough about the game to say it's one or the other.}

^{Note 2: The closure of the question about mob spawning on trees is just crazy: it still applies, but it was closed as too localized. The question demonstrating it still applied was closed as a duplicate of the too localized one, and the too localized one had a giant banner pointing people to the dupe.}

Answer 3

After reading these answers, I have realized from this that there are two categories of questions that I kind of conflated.

The first is questions about situations or entire mechanics that can never be encountered again due to updates (such as the minecraft booster question). It would be OK to close, delete, or do whatever to these questions because they will never again help someone who is visiting.

The second is questions with premises that are no longer valid due to an update but are still real questions about the current game or can be edited to be. For example, knowing whether monsters spawn on trees is useful in modern Minecraft, even if the original research/answers are invalid.

I also think that questions like the strawberry fish question about things that did not work previously, but now do work, belong in the second category. Trying to shoot the strawberry fish is still an actual problem people would face in the game, even if it is for a different reason now.

Answer 4

Yes, sometimes it is possible to salvage the question or the answers by editing to keep them up to date; then it's what we should do. There's no question about it.

However, when that fails, I strongly do oppose writing "meta-answers" like you suggest: "This issue no longer applies to this version" really is not an answer. If people are googling for that issue then they are the virtual nobodies who are stuck on a older version and still need help with the removed/significantly altered version; that answer does really not apply to them. (You could make an argument that such an answer would be useful for games that do not update themselves, but such games become less and less common.)

I also strongly oppose leaving the questions unmarked at all. Finally, if you really do think "closed" is not a final state for a question (which is not always true: consider exact duplicates) then it follows the question should be deleted, not reopened. I think deletion is unnecessary.

In short, I argue that while closing too localized is not the right course of action, it's the next closest thing with the Stack Exchange engine we have right here and now.

If you really do want to tie questions to a specific version of the game — fine; it does make sense for some games such as Dwarf Fortress. We are rather ill-equipped for the task, but it is doable (please do mention the version number in the question title, though!); this can do wonders for games like Dwarf Fortress where the latest version is not the one virtually everybody plays. Then though the answers also need to not be updated. Also we need to not close questions as duplicate between different versions (what if that game mechanic didn't change in between?). Finally, it might be harder for us to answer the question (do you have Minecraft alpha 1.5.0.2 installed somewhere?).

Answer 5

I may have tipped the balance in this issue by voting to close this question, it's a problem that no longer exists in the game at all. I think it should be closed for these reasons:

• no one can possibly run an older version of Diablo 3 due to the online nature
• the question is asking about a basic function that is easily understood
• no one is likely to need the work around described in the future
• the problem was patched out of existence
• no amount of question editing or answer editing can add anything other than "fixed in 1.04"

I don't mind if people disagree, but the solution of expanding the question title to "fixed in 1.04" seems to underline my point that the question is obsolete.

Sorry Nico, nothing personal, sorry to folks with upvotes on answers to the question, the work around was useful in 1.03. It's a matter of clearing out clutter to me, but everyone feel free to disagree.