What is "lacks concrete context" exactly?

Question

Context

Recently I've seen an increase in people voting for LCC when I don't agree this is the correct reason. These all seem to be getting LCC VTC because they're lacking description.

• https://codereview.stackexchange.com/q/222407
• Looping through this list takes time
• Displaying a paginated list of forum topics using PHP PDO
• Loop on dataframe takes a lot of time
• Find sum of neighbors in a 2D array
• Sign-up serialization in Python

Existing Close Reason

Lacks concrete context: Code Review requires concrete code from a project, with sufficient context for reviewers to understand how that code is used. Pseudocode, stub code, hypothetical code, obfuscated code, and generic best practices are outside the scope of this site.

Related Questions

Lacks Concrete Context is purely about code, not descriptions.

• "unclear what you're asking" vs "Lacks concrete context"
• When we changed the close reasons description wasn't an existing close reason, nor was it included into the close reason.

Related:

• The problem with insufficient context
• Need clarification on my close reason interpretation for a specific close reason

Rationale

Since this has been going on for over a year now, with no sign of improving. Should we accept that the reason is confusing, and should be changed.

Maybe a rewording to say:

• It's limited to just code;
• To use UCWYA for description; or
• To remove all instances of the word 'context.'

I'd hope one of these would help, but I'm no linguist.

Questions

Should we clarify the close reason?

• Yes: What should we clarify it to?
• No: How can we fix this scenario?

Answer 1

Doing nothing

Closers

It's confusing what people are closing for. Personally I don't VTC using the LCC reason unless it's pseudocode due to a history of stub/example code being enforced to a different degree at different points in time.

And so if someone VTC as LCC rather than UWYA then even if it is lacking description, I won't close it because I will be looking at the code not the description to find the problem everyone else has with it.

Posters

The current wording is confusing when used to close questions that have little description. Given that I'd recently seen someone copy and paste this reason into a comment, without any hyperlinks, it will only cause people to become confused why their questions closed and become unable to fix it.

Merging the close reason

This further proves CMs point that we don't need more than three reasons. Which will only further cripple our close reasons if we need to include more later. How can we prove that we would need four close reasons when we would already have four, but chose to only use three.

This is likely to still confuse users what is wrong with their code. The reason basically becomes "somethings missing from your question, but we CBA to even hint to you what".

Keeping them split

Getting UWYA alone can be a bit confusing. If given a comment to include more description it would make more sense however.