<p>The mission statement of this <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/tour">site</a> includes the sentence "With your help, we are working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about statistics."</p>

<p>In particular, there seems to be a problem with newbie question treatment. Often newbies lack the facility to pose a question properly, and that question is often crouched in terminology that is somewhat self-contradictory, a not unexpected consequence of not knowing enough stats to pose a question properly. Sometimes those questions are closed when there would are simple fixes that could salvage those questions. Similarly, sometimes answers are downvoted because of inaccurate language, even when those questions grossly correct .</p>

<p>Is there some way we could better reward editing of question/answers to fulfill the site mandate than to discourage participation by eliminating both questions and answers? One is mindful that there are more questions than answers in general and a lot of sloppiness in everyone's linguistic rendition of both. Some answers are so complicated that they are inaccessible to some readers, some answers are so simple that they are truth bending.</p>

<p>It does not seem that we are heading in the direction of building up a reference guide as efficiently as possible. In particular, if we can reduce the negative treatment of both questions and answers and enhance the fixing-up of both we might increase that efficiency, as well as create a more wholesome experience for all participants.</p>

<p>Are we doing our best to make newbies, moderators, and everyone in between feel that their contributions are worthwhile? I do not think so. There seems to be a pervasive attitude of objecting to "stupid." There are a lot of dumb rocks in this man's universe, and if we try to kick them all we will just be wasting time. When we find a glimmer of intelligent thought, we should contribute to it as intelligent thought is a very rare occurrence.</p>

<p>Here is an <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/320175/99274">example</a> for @whuber. The original question, if memory serves, I rescued from the close vote stream, because it was interesting enough despite the improper use of the word "family" and the resulting "unclear" close votes, that I tried to answer it. The question is now +7/-3 (2018-08-26). Shortly thereafter, there were more downvotes than upvotes for my answer. However, my answer was eventually accepted by the OP, and has stood the test of time in that it now has twice as many upvotes as downvotes +6/-3. Even the confusion concerning what a "family" is merited a Q/A of its <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/320746/99274">own</a> that both @whuber and I tried to contribute to. That question is currently +11/-1. Whuber's <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/320801/99274">answer</a> is +9/-0, accepted by that OP (me), and so complicated that I provided an answer, +1/0, myself that was as simple as I could make it.</p>

<p>Now, without squinting at the original question to see the potential value in it, the entire chain of events would not have transpired. In summary, trying to extract value in an idea goes beyond the superficial form of the question itself, and without that effort to polish the apple, so to speak, many upvotes and a few downvotes would not have occurred. I think that the apple polishing should be enhanced and we should consider some type of reward structure for "apple polishing", not because I am seeking a reward, but because it goes toward completion of our mandate. Let's face it, there are lots of concepts that are difficult to grasp, and it is precisely those difficult concepts that are the most interesting ones. If the participants spend too much time kicking dumb statements and not enough time picking out diamonds in the rough, the overall experience with the site will remain not as rewarding as it could be.</p>

<p>Here is an example of a question currently in the close question <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/364519/99274">queue</a> marked as "unclear" three times and as "primarily opinion based" by myself. Now, what is unclear about the question? I do not think it is unclear, I just think it is speculation that is not particularly illuminating. What do you think? My comment was "I'm not sure that that is worth doing as one can just perform a minimization to obtain a best model." None of the categories seemed particularly appropriate. What do you think? Were we helpfully saying the question is "unclear." Can you understand it? My understanding did not seem to be especially taxed and it often is in the review queue. Were the other reviews helpful? What is so difficult to understand about this question?</p>

<p>Here is another question that was marked as <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/364838/99274">unclear</a>. However, I provided enough detail in my answer that it clarified the question and was taken off of the list of questions to be deleted. What this proves is that if one really wants to help, one can clarify in an answer what was unclear for both the OP and the reader. </p>

<p>From the above, there seems to be a single outstanding issue, and that is that "unclear" is often in the mind of the beholder. "Unclear" is subjective. So, let us put this as a clear question.</p>

<p><strong>What can we do to mitigate inappropriate "unclear" closure votes?</strong></p>
