Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
In brief and as far as I understand: the software is out of control of MO so it seems impossible to implement what you suggest. The current version is not changed anymore, a switch to a newer version is under discussion, however I doubt, from the little I understand on the general philosophy behind that software, that a change along the lines you suggest would be considered. A key-goal is to have as low a barrier to participation as possible. (There is something of a somewhat opposite mechanism, namely that individual questions can be 'protected' which means only users with non-minimal reputation can answer; this refers to the newer version of the software and is not available on MO.) So, on technical grounds, this change seems essentially impossible.
There were suggestion in a similar spirit see here and here, for example. In particular, see grp's suggestion of a two-tier system in the second thread [however, this is an idea feasible only assuming somebody would develop a custom version of the software for MO; and indeed came about in the context of such a discussuion].
Finally my personal opinion, assuming for the sake of argument it would be possible: I am not at all sure I'd be in favor of it (I say this as somebody not having asked a single question, but having given close to 100 answers). For example, a side-effect could be creating low-quality/redundant answer given for the sole purpose of 'finding' some initial up-vote. And, there are some users that asked numerous legitimate question before ever gving an answer, some never gave an answer so far. Or, I would also not have liked to somehow be forced to ask something first before being able to answer (could also suggest this, after all a low-quality answer can be more harmful than a low-quality question).
a-fortiori: I am not sure I get your point. In my experience question that are clearly off-topic, in the sense of being on obviously too simple maths, typically get closed quickly without much or any discussion (the worst that can happen is that the questioner complains, but even this is rare). By contrast, those questions that generate real discussion are (in some sense by definition) not clearly off-topic, since if they were there'd be noone (or no critical mass) to argue in their favor.
I can vividly remember various somewhat heated discussion on question, but in very few cases would the questioner have been impeded from asking the question by your or any other of the suggested mechanisms (in some cases technically by yours, but the questioner typically could have answered something easily and I doubt they'd been convinced in the process not to ask the question).
To me all these suggested measures would at best remove something that I considered a very minor problem. Somebody just asked a group-theory excercise, so what? Costed me ten seconds to vote to close; if I'd been the first on the question perhaps a minute to type the closing message. If I would not want to deal with this at all I'd just read question that 'survive' for a couple of hours.
But the really more problematic situations would not be avoided, since the 'problem' is that the opinions among frequent users are split.
That's an interesting, and surprising observation, that one-quarter of all questions are closed! There might be a large variance in this statistic, because just this moment, I see 10% closed. And, as someone mentioned in another thread, there is a September effect of many new users posting as they return to their universities.
@Joseph O'Rourke: As of the last database dump, there were 22531 questions, of which 2571 were closed, so the 10% figure is about right historically. This doesn't take into account deleted questions, but I don't think that should skew the numbers much.
I am opposed to such a policy, since it would mess up the question-asking economy. Some of the best answers would never have been submitted if some questions by people with no answers had never been asked.
Such a decision would slowly kill the site, since it would create an imbalance in the number of people with research-level questions and those with research-level answers. Then, when those answerers find no questions to answer, they drift away and don't come back.
Here's some data.
As of the last database dump, there were 9831 users who had posted on MO. Of those, 6236 posted a question before posting any answers. Of those first questions, 1604 of them were closed (about 26% versus the global average of about 11%).
So first questions account for about 3/5 of all closed questions. On the other hand, if you ignore users who start out by asking a question that gets closed, it's still true that most users first start using MO by asking a question. Offhand, I happen to remember that this includes desirable-but-not-very-active users Michael Freedman and Vaughan Jones. I think this argues strongly against a minimum reputation for asking questions.
Thanks, Anton, for providing data for this discussion! (That Vaughan Jones exchange is priceless!)
1 to 10 of 10