<p>I guess that I'm mostly just repeating what others have already said, but here are my scattered thoughts on this...</p>

<p>There are different kinds of questions on this site. I think that questions from non-statisticians that are trying to apply statistics (ranging from "can I use the t-test for my data?!"-type questions to thorough descriptions of their application) are the ones that usually require clarification and reformulation.</p>

<p>When I meet a non-statistician for a consulting session, I like to start by discussing their research problem (they are usually researchers) without talking about statistics. It is important to understand the actual problem instead of letting oneself be confused by the client's attempt to describe their problem in statistical terms. As most of you undoubtably know, it is not uncommon that instead of answering "yes, you can use the t-test" the statistician finds herself saying "you're not really interested in comparing means!"</p>

<p>I guess that my goal when I work as a consultant boils down to the following statement: <strong>make sure that both you and the client (OP) understand the problem.</strong> On CV, that sometimes requires lots of comments. Sometimes it requires a well-written and well thought-out answer. It seldom requires a quick answer.</p>

<p><strong>StackExchange sites do not lend themselves well to the kind of dialogue that is essential for statistical discussions.</strong> We leave comments. Sometimes we forget to check back on the thread, because the OP didn't know how to use the @ function. Sometimes we don't get any replies at all. Sometimes someone else writes a good answer before there is a reply to the comment. Sometimes someone writes a bad answer without waiting for the clarification, which may cause all kinds of headaches.</p>

<p>With the reputation/badge system being what it is, I don't see quickly written answers going away anytime soon. That being said, when we write our answers, we should at least try to be clear about how we interpreted the question. It seems obvious that we should try to avoid implicit assumptions in our answers, especially when the question is vague or perhaps even in error. Indeed, this should always be done in statistical communication - CrossValidated is no exception!</p>

<p>What makes clarity even more important is that months and years from now, people will still find the questions and answers posted here in Google searches. <strong>We write our answers not only to the OP, but to the non-statisticians of tomorrow as well.</strong></p>

<p>Finally, I don't think that votes is a very good way of handling questions that need clarification or improvement. <strong>Downvoting questions by low-rep users can be counter-productive</strong> in that it causes the user to flee the site without clarifying their question.</p>
