For inappropriate answers (also in the scope of this discussion), most of this is already in the pro-forma comments script, which currently includes comments for:
- Answers just to say Thanks!
- Nothing but a URL (and isn't spam)
- Request to OP for further information
- OP using an answer for further information
- OP adding a new question as answer
- Another user adding a "Me too!"
Some Seasoned-Advice-specific issues that come up frequently but aren't in the script:
Recipe polls are off-topic here as indicated by the [FAQ]. If you're looking for recipes then there are some good resources linked in the following: What are some good recipe resources? For a more detailed explanation of this policy as well as guidelines on acceptable recipe-related questions, please see What types of recipe questions are allowed?
This question does not currently meet any of our guidelines for "culinary uses" questions. We welcome questions about using edible non-culinary or waste ingredients or other rare ingredients; common ingredients are better addressed by using an ingredient-based recipe search.
What can I add to X?
This question is currently written as a poll and will lead to answers and votes based solely on personal taste. If you have a specific, objective goal, please amend your question to include it and we may reopen it. For more information, see our guidelines on "What can I add to X?" questions which suggests several alternative wordings.
I believe it's important for moderators (and other close-voters) to be polite but still firm. We should never be rude or accusatory, but too much hand-holding (a) drains time and energy from more pertinent issues, and (b) sets the tone that every community or moderation action is open to negotiation. We should be taking on an almost parental role, being helpful and supportive when we can, yet secure in the knowledge that we don't always owe a detailed explanation for straightforward actions.
More specifically, when a question is probably salvageable, we should be able to provide specific guidance on how to improve it, or simply edit it ourselves. On the other hand, questions which are simply inappropriate or poor quality (and this applies to almost all Off-Topic and NARQ closings) are generally not worth it. That is why I'm against awkward, generic advice claiming that "closing isn't final" and so on.
Either we offer specific advice to fix the question or we accept that it probably won't be reopened and that the author might be unhappy about it. We can't be everybody's best friend.
Jeff calls this the Pee-Wee Herman Rule. If a particular member or question is at odds with community norms but represents a very high potential, then we should handle with extreme care. Personally, I'm more partial to the "Earn Your Bullsh*t" slogan, which more clearly states that we expect to see honest effort before we consider bending the rules.
Usually these are the types of questions that can simply be edited instead of closed, and thus we avoid the closing issue altogether. But in those extremely rare instances where we can't fix it ourselves but really want the author to do so - fine, point them to the closing FAQ and the closing meta discussion and explain that we will reopen it if they can make it fit within the guidelines. There's no canned explanation we can give, these need to be handled on a case-by-case basis.
P.S. The author of a post is automatically notified of new comments. Don't address them with the "@" notifier - the system will automatically remove them.