7

I don't know the stats but I think all our current close reasons are used regularly, so we don't want to change them.

However there has also been significant support for having a close reason that explicitly calls out questions that in essence don't start from a text, like this one - which mentions Matthew 5:3-4 but really begins with the idea of counseling. (That the questions asks how verse 3 or 4 can be used is one of the clues into the OPs intent.)

So please can we add an additional fourth 'close' reason for those of us who'd like to use this option:

Exegetical questions that don't start from the text, but from a preconceived idea or framework, are off topic.

12
  • 5
    +1 from me, I'd even be ok seeing the systematic theology close reason go away and be replaced with this.
    – Dan
    May 5 '15 at 12:24
  • As I said last time it would really help to have a list of clearly off-topic questions which you think this question applies too. I think that's especially the case for the systematic theology questions, because that seems nebulous or subjective sometimes. I don't see why you would want to close the question you liked to with this close reason! It's too broad and too applicationy.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    May 7 '15 at 8:12
  • @curiousdannii Regarding the second part of your comment: There is no ‘application’ close reason. This could serve that purpose (for questions that indeed start from an application and aren’t better characterized as ‘without a specific text’). Applying two verses to one context also doesn’t seem too broad to me.
    – Susan
    May 7 '15 at 8:42
  • @curiousdannii I don't think it is too broad myself - it is confined to a single verse or two. I also don't think 'too applicationy' is a helpful description because (1) 'application' is one of those words that means different things to different people and in different contexts and (2) in some cases its good to have application May 7 '15 at 8:42
  • @curiousdannii generally speaking I agree with Jon that this new close reason would overlap quite a bit with the 'systematic theology' close reason - but I think it is harder to misinterpret this wording. I think if we had both for a time, the 'systematic theology' reason would fall out of use. May 7 '15 at 8:49
  • @JackDouglas I think we pretty much agreed in those simultaneous comments. Re. “in some cases its good to have application”: I think that was mostly about answers. If a question is focused on modern application, I feel like that’s fairly clearly off topic, but I recognize that this has not been thought to be a clear enough line to use as a close reason.
    – Susan
    May 7 '15 at 8:49
  • @Susan in 99% of practical cases I agree, but I'd still prefer the rule to be: (1) start from the text, (2) join the dots, even in questions - there may be some texts where something some folk call 'application' is very close to the text as Mike points out and I think we can allow those and avoid arguments over what 'application' and 'systematic theology' actually mean by defining topicality without what is basically jargon (I mean that in a non-pejorative sense - I think the words are useful, but not helpful when directed at our entire audience) May 7 '15 at 8:52
  • @JackDouglas I see this proposed close reason as closed to the existing no bible text close reason, which is just the most extreme version of this. The systematic theology reason seems more different to me. It is very jargony too, but I'm not sure of what to replace it with. I think we need the first part of this close reason, but I don't like the part starting with "but"...
    – curiousdannii Mod
    May 7 '15 at 8:57
  • @curiousdannii now would be a good time to suggest an alternative wording :) May 10 '15 at 14:13
  • @JackDouglas I posted a suggestion in the other meta question but I think it would apply for this question too.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    May 13 '15 at 1:31
  • @JackDouglas It's good to see your involvement again :>) "Doesn't start from the text" and "Systematic Theology" reasons for closure have been thoroughly discussed 'ad nauseum', and Site Directives have been explicitly hammered out as to their intended meaning. I don't think anyone could suggest a more 'succinct' way of explaining them, short of the implantable chip that we'll all soon be receiving that automatically deciphers linguistic intent...;>) Truth be told-there needs to be a 'coaching' process to those who evaluate, sort of like a new umpire learning how to call balls and strikes.
    – Tau
    May 18 '15 at 14:57
  • Thanks @Tau :-) May 18 '15 at 15:47
5

In the last 90 days, here are the close reason statistics:

Name                                       Closed     Closed->Edited Closed->Reopened Cl->Ed->Re 
------------------------------------------ ---------- -------------- ---------------- ---------- 
duplicate                                          17          3              2                1 
off-topic - Other (add a comment explainin          7          0              0                0 
off-topic - Questions **searching for a te          3          0              0                0 
off-topic - Questions **without a specific         26          4              2                1 
off-topic - Questions regarding **systemat          8          1              1                1 
off-topic - belongs on another site in the          1          0              0                0 
primarily opinion-based                             3          1              0                0 
too broad                                           4          2              1                1 
unclear what you're asking                         14          4              4                4 

(9 row(s) returned)

% of Closed Name                                       Closed->Edited Closed->Reopened Cl->Ed->Re 
----------- ------------------------------------------ -------------- ---------------- ---------- 
 20.5%      duplicate                                   17.6%          11.8%            33.3%     
  8.4%      off-topic - Other (add a comment explainin   0.0%           0.0%                      
  3.6%      off-topic - Questions **searching for a te   0.0%           0.0%                      
 31.3%      off-topic - Questions **without a specific  15.4%           7.7%            25.0%     
  9.6%      off-topic - Questions regarding **systemat  12.5%          12.5%           100.0%     
  1.2%      off-topic - belongs on another site in the   0.0%           0.0%                      
  3.6%      primarily opinion-based                     33.3%           0.0%             0.0%     
  4.8%      too broad                                   50.0%          25.0%            50.0%     
 16.9%      unclear what you're asking                  28.6%          28.6%           100.0%     

(9 row(s) returned)

Questions Custom OT Reason (other)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
--------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
1         I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is asking for an opinion / pastoral advice.                                                                                                                                                                                                
1         This question is primarily a history question, not a biblical hermeneutics question.                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
1         I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it appears to be asking specifically about application of a text, rather than interpretation of the meaning of the text. The former is outside the scope of this site.                                                                        
1         I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because [questions that don't start from the text, but rather from a preconceived idea or framework, are off topic](https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1088/43)                                                                             
1         I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because the question starts from an idea, not the text itself.                                                                                                                                                                                        
1         I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it has nothing to do with hermeneutics but finding where to buy something.                                                                                                                                                                    
1         I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because [it is about the application of the text in a modern context](https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/207/2215), and this is beyond this site's remit.                                                                                   
1         I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because (1) it does not deal with interpreting of a specific text, (2) there is no set answer to give because various forms of the text exist in Greek that will vary the character count, and (3) the character count is irrelevant to hermeneutics. 

It appears the least used reason is:

Questions searching for a text are off-topic. For more information, see this meta post.

There are roughly as many write-in reasons that match the general proposal of this meta question. It's been awhile since I kept up with questions, but I would guess that the proposed close reason would be more useful than the searching for a text reason. On the other hand, I suspect there's a good deal of overlap with the systematic theology reason. In fact that seems a proper subset of the proposed reason.

My suggestion: retire the systematic theology reason and substitute the doesn't start from the text reason.

13
  • 1
    I would be in support of this. Although I upvoted David's endorsement of the systematic theology close reason and still believe that it is correct, on reflection I found ScottS's argument that this was being misused (particularly by myself) convincing. I have since been reluctant to use it because I'm not sure I understand it well enough. The reason Jack has proposed I do understand.
    – Susan
    May 7 '15 at 5:10
  • I'm not sure this option is open because keeping that close reason has a lot of support (though I'd change my own vote if I still could). I'd like to allow both close reasons and revisit in a year to see which has become the 'de facto' standard of the two (because as you say they overlap considerably). May 7 '15 at 8:44
  • @JackDouglas If you and I both changed our votes, it’d be at +1....
    – Susan
    May 7 '15 at 8:50
  • 1
    @Susan I went ahead and edited/voted - hopefully David won't mind :) May 9 '15 at 16:11
  • @JackDouglas OK, I did too. Are you in support of Jon's proposal now? +4 | -3 isn't so compelling....
    – Susan
    May 12 '15 at 18:15
  • @JackDouglas Susan, I believe David's post is now in the negative ;)
    – Dan
    May 12 '15 at 19:55
  • @Susan I am in support of what Jon is suggesting, yes - I think it'll help everyone, especially newcomers and folk with diverse understandings of theologically loaded words :) May 12 '15 at 21:02
  • 1
    JackDouglas - I don't mind at all. The discussion has morphed from that to which my answer was a response, though, so I appreciate @Susan's careful wording in this comment trail. :)
    – Dɑvïd
    May 12 '15 at 21:55
  • @Jon - any chance you could link to a data query showing a list of closed questions of the "off-topic - Questions regarding **systemat" variety? It might help us to have some specific examples to put these suggestions to the test.
    – Dɑvïd
    May 13 '15 at 18:06
  • @Davïd: Unfortunately, the breakdown isn't easy to extract from the public data. However, I did pull the list from our internal data and posted it as a Gist.
    – Jon Ericson Mod
    May 13 '15 at 18:36
  • @JonEricson I upvoted your answer(it's hard to argue with data), but disagree with your conclusion. You, of all people, should know how hard it is to 'move the goalposts' once the game is underway. That's like telling the NFL "footballs need to be the weight that we've deflated them to, because it's easier for our quarterback to throw them...." The Site Directives have been thoroughly discussed and applied with regularity(for the most part); the most casual user can understand their intention. The Secret (IMO) is to get folks to understand what they DO and DO NOT mean.
    – Tau
    May 18 '15 at 15:13
  • @All Everybody wants the Rules(whether of Law or Life) to be slanted towards their particular persuasion, that's just human nature. But somebody or some entity has to decide ' this works for the greatest number of people, in the most diverse applications'. Rule of Thumb-the simpler, the better. A simple mnemonic, rightly applied, is much more easily applied than a complex matrix which no one grasps-except those who devised it or are looking for exceptions to it. An example: Click it or Ticket-how hard is that to understand? "Start from the Text" and "Systematic Theology" are a mnemonic(cont.)
    – Tau
    May 18 '15 at 15:34
  • @All (cont.) for the Casual User to say "Watch where you're going". Those who VtC should understand how they are meant to be used, and not just indiscriminately apply them to answers or questions that don't sound right to them. Final Point: It's much easier to enforce a simple rule, rather than make one that 'cookie cuts' around all possible exceptions. We can exercise discretion in enforcement: comments or questions to contributors help us to examine their intent. But the "wording" currently used most basically describes the offense we want to see avoided-any changes should be minimal.
    – Tau
    May 18 '15 at 15:53
5

Moderator note: It seems like discussion on this issue has run its course and this proposal had the best support and the most fine tuning. The site's close reasons have been duly updated. Any further discussion should probably happen in a new meta post. — Caleb


Background

Incorporating ideas from Davïd's answer here, as well as his answer elsewhere, curiousdannii's critique of the "start" language, and Jack Douglas's view to simplicity, while also considering the current close reasons, which are...

  • Questions without a specific Bible passage are off-topic as we cannot apply hermeneutical methods to text if there is no text.
  • Questions regarding systematic theology are off-topic. For more information, see this meta post.
  • Questions searching for a text are off-topic. For more information, see this meta post.

... and what appears to be a move in consensus to remove the "systematic theology" reason, while also considering that even though "searching for a text" is rather unused, it is the best response to a "where does it say..." type question.

Proposal

I propose tweaking the first reason, a wholesale changing the systematic theology reason to the second one given below, a slight tweaking to keep the third reason:

[NOTE: 2nd reason updated to reflect a tweaked version of Caleb's commented suggestion.]

  • Questions about biblical topics but without a specific Bible passage are off-topic as we cannot apply hermeneutical methods to text if there is no text referenced.
  • Questions including a biblical text but that are not seeking an answer about (1) the history of that biblical text itself or (2) the meaning of that biblical text either in context or through a process of arriving at a particular interpretation of it are off-topic.
  • Questions searching for a text about some topic are off-topic. For more information, see this meta post.

Further Discussion

This way we:

  1. Keep "without a specific Bible passage" for any questions that are about Bible topics but failed to provide any anchor to the text at all.
  2. Educate what two categories of questions that do include a bible text are acceptable--history of the text or original context meaning of the text.
  3. Keep the "searching for a text" for those "where..." questions.
  4. Allow hermeneutical approaches (all the reasons above note a relation to questions about biblical topics or references; note that the original "without specific Bible passage" reason's wording could have been used to close a heremeneutical approach question--and if I recall, almost once was, but at the moment cannot find my comment related to that event).
  5. Other off-topic reasons should generally be covered by the pushing to another SE site or giving the custom reasoning.

Note that the rephrasing allows:

  1. The using of a theological term in phrasing one's question (Trinity, hypostatic union, soteriology, etc.); the questioner is allowed to express his/her "framework" of understanding through such terms, but the off-topic close reasons do require that a connection of their logic/terminology be made to a particular text, and that logic/terminology may be challenged by one answering the question. It may also be "closed" via reason #2 if no mentions is made about seeking actual meaning of the text. For example:

    Is John 1:1 a reference to the Trinity?

    To me, this is a poorly worded question, as it really is not asking about the "meaning" of John 1:1, but simply whether that passage supposedly upholds some theological doctrine. Rather, something like:

    What does John 1:1 teach about the nature of God and the Word and their relationship? It seems to uphold the idea of the Christian Trinity, but does it?

    To me, this question is fine. Yes, it references a theological (from Christian orthodoxy) concept of Trinity, but it has grounded the discussion in trying to determine what the text is actually saying first, while noting that the questioner understands it to relate to the theological concept.

    Perhaps another close reason to add to the three proposed above might head off questions like the former:

    • Questions including a biblical text, but seeking to simply know whether or not it supports or refutes a particular theological or sectarian viewpoint are off-topic.
  2. Comparison questions (how text A's statement relates to text B's statement), as at least one of the two texts will be the historical/theological background for the other text, and that other text either completely unrelated (which an answer could argue for) or some type of commentary or clarification of the former background text, which then may or may not have been directly in view of the original (human*) author of the former text.


* Those like myself that view the text as equally divinely authored would consider later clarification/commentary as already in the mind of God even at the point of the earlier revelation.

5
  • 4
    I like the attention to matching all the close reasons, and this set looks pretty good. My only concern is the wording of part 2 of number 2. In spite of the obvious [healthy] bias towards interpretive frameworks that focus on the meaning in the original context, not all hermeneutical approaches represented here will necessarily fit that wording. How about changing «(2) the meaning of that biblical text within the context from which it was authored» to something like «(2) the meaning of that biblical text in context or the process of arriving at an interpretation»?
    – Caleb
    May 16 '15 at 6:43
  • @Caleb: I like your proposed change to my (2), as I can see how that opens up other hermeneutical approaches, but still leaves out seeking just "I believe..." answers without showing the "process" of arriving at an interpretation. I'd be interested in hearing from some others on your proposed change, so I ope more chime in.
    – ScottS
    May 17 '15 at 0:16
  • @Caleb (et al) - I like it too, but I think it obviates the need for a "(1)...(2)..." structure at all. Caleb's #2 ("the meaning of that biblical text in context or the process of arriving at an interpretation") covers all the bases, doesn't it? (I'm also not clear that it's appreciably different from my "Questions which fail to focus on the interpretation of the biblical text or hermeneutical approaches to it are off topic.", but if so, then that's a good thing!)
    – Dɑvïd
    May 17 '15 at 13:16
  • 1
    @Davïd That might explain why I've upvoted both proposals. The thing I found significant about this one is the way it tweaks the other reasons so they complement each other better.
    – Caleb
    May 17 '15 at 14:50
  • @Davïd: I see the development of the text form as distinctly different than taking the form we have and understanding its meaning. That is the purpose of the (1) ... (2) .... The form determines the basis of meaning, but meaning can be determined without reference to how form came to be. Of course my answer was partly inspired by your answer here, hence similarity. However, the words "focus" and "hermeneutical" were less clear for some, so my attempt was to simplify the language for a new user to understand better what we seek here. Whether I was successful remains to be determined.
    – ScottS
    May 17 '15 at 19:47
2

Yet another option:

̶Q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶f̶a̶i̶l̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶f̶o̶c̶u̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶i̶b̶l̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶t̶e̶x̶t̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶h̶e̶r̶m̶e̶n̶e̶u̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶a̶p̶p̶r̶o̶a̶c̶h̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶ ̶t̶o̶p̶i̶c̶.̶

Tweak:

Questions which fail to focus on the interpretation of the biblical text or hermeneutical approaches to it are off topic.

I think we all agree pretty much on what we want to "prohibit", but I'm not sure we've nailed the best way to signal it in the reasons offered:

  • the "...regarding systematic theology..." reason that sparked this has been found wanting for various reasons;
  • OP's proposal here ("Exegetical questions that don't start from the text...") seems to me almost an oxymoron, although I see what's intended and can imagine the sort of question this would address;
  • "Exegetical questions that start from a preconceived idea or framework..." strikes me as problematic (although I see etc. etc.) because every question in some sense starts from a preconceived idea or framework.

I've tried to work out what would disallow the "counselling" question, or (say) something doctrinal-which-does-not-start-from-the-text, and the suggestion above is the best I could do.

I think it meets the need without falling foul of the pedantic tics which mar (imo) the current suggestions. Any tweaks? Any takers? Or am I missing the point.


Update - A few thoughts in response to the helpful comment trail:

  • "biblical text" was phrased as it was so as not to exclude on-topic questions that involve more than one text: if one says "a specific text", then it probably needs to be slightly enlarged: "a specific text (or texts)" or something like that;
  • still, "biblical text" sounds a bit poncey to me, but try to replace it and it just gets messier (or at least, that's what I'm finding); we always have a meta for this anyway;
  • I was thinking it was plain English in non-technical words -- except for "hermeneutical", of course, but I thought that was fair game in context;
  • my sense tallies with @curiousdannii's, that where an OP wants to take the question is usually more problematic than the textual starting point (in fact, I think this is at the heart of @JackDouglas's perception that kicked off this round of discussion) -- and that's why I opted for "focus" as really joining start-and-end: what is at the "heart" of the question: the text? or "preconceived idea or framework" that is off-topic?

And I, too, would love to have ten examples (or so, like the Site Review) of Q's which have been closed as "off-topic". I don't have time right now to devise the data query. But someone might have done this already.....

11
  • I don't know exactly what to prohibit. I'd still love to see a list of examples.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    May 13 '15 at 1:04
  • +1 I'm liking it. The only hesitation I had was "the biblical text" could end up being too broad, but we have another close reason to handle such a case, so perhaps the wording here need not worry about that (though I could see a tweak like "fails to focus on a narrow subset of the biblical text" or some such to help clarify that.
    – ScottS
    May 13 '15 at 1:06
  • I'm with ScottS, I'd love to see it reworded to 'on a specific biblical text or...' and I'm loving it. Or the wording proposed by Scott, or something better.... But then again, we do have a close reason for that. So meh.
    – Dan
    May 13 '15 at 1:16
  • 2
    I've been thinking that your three-pronged test may be equally applicable to questions, perhaps with a little tweaking
    – Dan
    May 13 '15 at 2:52
  • "I think we all agree pretty much on what we want to 'prohibit'" - I absolutely get this sense too - it is just down to the wording that is easiest to understand. In this case I think the weakness is the word 'focus' - there is no in-built 'degree' or 'level' of focus implied and I think it'll be widely open to everyone's interpretation as to whether a particular question 'focuses' enough. That's why I particularly like the word 'start'. May 13 '15 at 6:13
  • @JackDouglas I think the word 'start' is unhelpful! The issue isn't where they start but where they want to finish - the purpose behind the questions.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    May 13 '15 at 6:20
  • @curiousdannii In other words you want to limit how 'high' they go. We haven't (as a community) ever been able to agree how to define that limit comprehensibly, but the two rules (1) start from the text, and (2) join the dots in your reasoning, have the excellent benefit that in practice they do limit how high you can take your logic away from the text, and they do so in language that is widely and easily understood without using jargon or words that carry different baggage for different traditions. In short, I think these 'rules' get everyone what they want. May 13 '15 at 6:28
  • @JackDouglas I think saying 'start with a text' are going to just confuse anyone asking systematic questions who did indeed start with a text. And people will take "from a preconceived idea" to mean that they are asserting some doctrine, when they may not be. Trying to think of an example... someone could quote from 1 Cor and ask whether healings can happen now. They're starting from a text, and don't know what they believe, so they wouldn't think they're using any framework. But the question is off-topic I think?
    – curiousdannii Mod
    May 13 '15 at 7:09
  • I like the direction the edit took. I see at least two deficiencies still. (1) It should include a 3rd category relating to the "development" of the text (questions about authorship, transmission, preservation, text-criticism, etc., that relate directly to the physical texts we have), as they are on topic. (2) The word "interpretation" definitely needs a link to a meta post to clarify what we "mean" by it, not what it perhaps "means" to our visitors (who may hold that "interpretation" is referring to present day contextual application of the text; the 3-pronged test meta post would work).
    – ScottS
    May 14 '15 at 13:27
  • 1
    Thanks, @ScottS - my assumption is/was that (1) is still under the umbrella of "interpretation of the text" (all of those things are part-and-parcel of textual interpretation). As for (2), I take it we can link to things if that is helpful; the goal for these close-reasons is clarity and brevity. I see exactly what you're saying though. And still: we need to induct new users to the site purpose & framework. It certainly took me a while to "get it"!, and maybe it's unrealistic to think we can deliver the goods in a single pithy close-reason, however carefully worded + linked.
    – Dɑvïd
    May 14 '15 at 14:49
  • I appreciate your efforts on this. Really. I'm wondering, though, if we're taking the wrong approach on these close reasons by defining what's on-topic and then essentially negating that, rather than enumerating common types of posts which are off-topic (e.g. questions asking for where you find something, or questions asking about theology proper, etc...).
    – Soldarnal
    May 15 '15 at 13:55
0

I'd like to see this implemented in lieu of the systematic theology close reason, but worded as follows for clarity:

Questions that start from a preconceived idea or framework rather than a specific biblical text are off topic.

The caveat of a specified hermeneutical framework is also notable (i.e. such questions are on topic).

11
  • I'm open to persuasion on whether it should be 'specific' or 'specified', but we already have a close reason for non-specified texts so I went with this.
    – Dan
    May 12 '15 at 21:43
  • As I reflect on it, I'm puzzled why the word "Exegetical...." begins this close-reason. I feel like it would be preferable simply to have "Questions that start...". Maybe I'm just a miserable pedant, though. :)
    – Dɑvïd
    May 12 '15 at 22:00
  • 1
    @Davïd To the exclusion of questions about hermeneutical approaches (which don’t require a specific text), I believe.
    – Susan
    May 12 '15 at 22:01
  • @Davïd we're all pedants here, otherwise we wouldn't be having these discussions ;) -- see the comment history on this post
    – Dan
    May 12 '15 at 22:02
  • Every question starts with preconceived ideas and frameworks. If this just boils down to 'doesn't have a text' then I don't think it is helpful.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    May 13 '15 at 1:03
  • @curiousdannii agreed, it is more than that. This includes the existing systematic theology close reason but is broader to some extent. In addition to precluding traditional anachronistic theological ideas that can't be drawn from any specific text, it also includes things like space aliens, conspiracy theories, etc.
    – Dan
    May 13 '15 at 1:12
  • I would like to see this edited to remove the word 'exegetical' per David's point. We don't feel a need to mention the hermeneutical approaches caveat in the "without a specific bible passage" close reason; why here? I think it would be sufficient to explain in the linked meta post. In this meta post, I would also like to see it pointed out that the main point of this revision was to move from Jack's "the text" to "a specific biblical text." After my (trivial) word re-ordering it's not obvious that they are otherwise the same.
    – Susan
    May 13 '15 at 4:44
  • @Susan fixed ;)
    – Dan
    May 13 '15 at 5:25
  • 1
    I thought it was better to have 'exegetical' in it - it scopes the close reason to exegesis questions, rather than terminology or the historical of hermeneutical approaches
    – curiousdannii Mod
    May 13 '15 at 6:22
  • I'm with @curiousdannii on this one Dan - I've said why I think so in The Library May 13 '15 at 6:31
  • though I might add I still think this would be a major improvement on what we have and have upvoted it. May 13 '15 at 6:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .