<p>Not sure why, but lately I've noticed that many questions are being downvoted, not because they are "off-topic," but because the CV observers felt the question wasn't clear enough. Is this sort of knee-jerk, wholesale rejection good practice? Is it discouraging to potential participants who may not be well-enough informed to ask a statistically lucid question but are still quite willing to learn from more structured feedback? Is this shaping the demography of this forum away from basic questioners to the highly sophisticated user? </p>

<p>Here are some examples where I felt the trigger is, perhaps, being pulled too fast:</p>

<ul>
<li><p><a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/272296/perform-pca-on-data-having-more-dimensions-than-observatiions#comment520948_272296">PCA on data having more dimensions than observations</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/272217/compare-regression-lines-for-trend-recognition#comment520872_272217">Compare Regression Lines for Trend recognition</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/272123/how-did-nyt-do-uber-driver-simulation#comment520567_272123">How did NYT do Uber driver simulation?</a></p></li>
</ul>

<p>All of them are undeniably vague, unstructured and confusing. However, why should all questioners be expected to cogently articulate a "dissertation-worthy" question? Is it the role of more experienced CV participants to act as "stats police? Or is it better to act more "Socratically," in helping naive participants elicit and better articulate their concerns?</p>

<p>I would argue that the latter role is more rewarding for both the questioner as well as the participant as both can learn from each other's ignorance.</p>
