user46: I was reading this question (Arduino as USB HID) and was surprised that it already had two votes to close as being off-topic only after a few minutes of being asked.
I started discussing with @AsheeshR that although I would agreed that the question is in the frontier of being on/off topic, we should give it a chance as it someone knowledgeable could add facts that could reveal that the question is on-topic.
I just thoght that we are repeating the same mistakes as SE.EE (see my related question there), which sometimes compulsively try to quickly close on-topic questions. 
Although putting a question on-hold is a useful quality assurance tool, I think it was misused in this particular example, as putting a question on hold also discourages knowledgeable people from answering it, and I would like very much to know the answer to it even if the answer is just what you are saying (on the windows side).
Instead of voting for closing, the reviewers could have edited or answered the question so that us readers would understand better why the question isn't related to Arduinos and why it's being closed. That would have been much more constructive than voting for closing it. 
So, my general question is: Where should we draw the line for closing votes in this particular case?

user379: I won't come as a newbie on a forum and give lessons to the people who built it, but that question, should not be closed because of what it is asking, because what it asks is definitely possible using AVR only code, cf my comment.
I guess I'd need to do a little bit of research on how to guide the OP on actually implementing that, because I guess most of the people doing USB HID devices use the leonardo, not the uno.
The only thing that would be wrong about the question, is how it looks like, and maybe encourage the OP to edit and improve it by giving him time and advices.

In this specific example, I really can't see how this is "on the line". The question is specifically asking how to develop a software layer on Windows to utilize input being sent using the serial connection. 

it's actually not, only part 1 of the question is, but part 2 of the question is open to suggestions.


we should give it a chance as it someone knowledgeable could add facts that could reveal that the question is on-topic.
    Yes, there is. But the OP is not interested in trying that out, as is clearly mentioned in the comments. 


the OP only said in the comments that he is afraid of flashing using DFU because he may brick his stuff. That's because he does not know he can actually build a cheap ISP board using another arduino to reflash it in case everything gets wrong!


[...]
    A question about Windows APIs would best be answered on Windows development forums. That is not a question for Arduino.SE


though the OP asks whether it's possible to do it using Windows stuff, wouldn't it be the role of an Arduino community to tell him that he actually can do using the Arduino hardware and no windows code? Which would make that an even better solution, as it would be portable!

I explained albeit in few words, as to why the question was off-topic. I do not think this was at all a problem in this case.

I do not agree a question that definitely has an answer should be put on hold for one week in a few minutes after posting. If I could, I'd definitely vote for reopen, and guide the OP to understand what's wrong in his question.
Question closing/holding/rerouting is for keeping the knowledge base sane by keeping track of dupes, moving questions where people might get an answer or delete questions that are offending or just totally un-answerable.
That question applies to non of those cases, it can be answered and is definitely interesting for future readers of the forum.
HTH

user65: Questions that appear to be borderline off-topic should either:

Be edited and improved to be made on-topic (by the OP or any user that understands the problem well)
Be voted to close (put "On Hold")

The first action is preferable of course, but when not possible, we should not  hesitate from voting to close. The entire closing interface was recently redesigned to be far more simpler and easier to understand with greater emphasis on editing and reopening. The current behavior is that the question stays "On Hold" for an initial period of 7 days, during which it can be made clearer, edited and improved; and automatically get pushed into the reopen queue. The "On Hold" status clearly signals that it is a temporary state and can be lifted after improvements
In this specific example, I really can't see how this is "on the line". The question is specifically asking how to develop a software layer on Windows to utilize input being sent using the serial connection. 
Lastly, to answer point by point.

we should give it a chance as it someone knowledgeable could add facts that could reveal that the question is on-topic.

Yes, there is. But the OP is not interested in trying that out, as is clearly mentioned in the comments. 

Although putting a question on-hold is a useful quality assurance tool, I think it was misused in this particular example, as putting a question on hold also discourages knowledgeable people from answering it, and I would like very much to know the answer to it even if the answer is just what you are saying (on the windows side).

A question about Windows APIs would best be answered on Windows development forums. That is not a question for Arduino.SE

Instead of voting for closing, the reviewers could have edited or answered the question so that us readers would understand better why the question isn't related to Arduinos and why it's being closed. That would have been much more constructive than voting for closing it.

I explained albeit in few words, as to why the question was off-topic. I do not think this was at all a problem in this case. 
Moreover, in general, the new help center consists of extremely well-written content accumulated from community-generated posts, which does not necessitate the need for comments explaining whats wrong with a question, every time a question is closed.

46: <p>I was reading this question (<a href="https://arduino.stackexchange.com/q/484/46">Arduino as USB HID</a>) and was surprised that it already had two votes to close as being off-topic only after a few minutes of being asked.</p>

<p>I started discussing with @AsheeshR that although I would agreed that the question is in the frontier of being on/off topic, we should give it a chance as it someone knowledgeable could add facts that could reveal that the question is on-topic.</p>

<p>I just thoght that we are repeating the same mistakes as SE.EE (<a href="https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3354/why-close-this-question-instead-of-editting-it-to-make-it-on-topic">see my related question there</a>), which sometimes compulsively try to quickly close on-topic questions. </p>

<p>Although putting a question on-hold is a useful quality assurance tool, I think it was misused in this particular example, as putting a question on hold also discourages knowledgeable people from answering it, and I would like very much to know the answer to it even if the answer is just what you are saying (on the windows side).</p>

<p>Instead of voting for closing, the reviewers could have edited or answered the question so that us readers would understand better why the question isn't related to Arduinos and why it's being closed. That would have been much more constructive than voting for closing it. </p>

<p>So, my general question is: <strong>Where should we draw the line for closing votes in this particular case?</strong></p>
 379: <p>I won't come as a newbie on a forum and give lessons to the people who built it, but that question, should not be closed because of what it is asking, because what it asks is definitely possible using AVR only code, cf my <a href="https://arduino.stackexchange.com/questions/484/arduino-as-usb-hid#comment845_484">comment</a>.</p>

<p>I guess I'd need to do a little bit of research on how to guide the OP on actually implementing that, because I guess most of the people doing USB HID devices use the leonardo, not the uno.</p>

<p>The only thing that would be wrong about the question, is how it looks like, and maybe encourage the OP to edit and improve it by giving him <em>time</em> and <em>advices</em>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In this specific example, I really can't see how this is "on the line". The question is specifically asking how to develop a software layer on Windows to utilize input being sent using the serial connection. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>it's actually not, only part 1 of the question is, but part 2 of the question is open to suggestions.</p>

<blockquote>
  <blockquote>
    <p>we should give it a chance as it someone knowledgeable could add facts that could reveal that the question is on-topic.
    Yes, there is. But the OP is not interested in trying that out, as is clearly mentioned in the comments. </p>
  </blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>the OP only said in the comments that he is <em>afraid</em> of flashing using DFU because he may brick his stuff. That's because he does not know he can actually build a cheap ISP board using another arduino to reflash it in case everything gets wrong!</p>

<blockquote>
  <blockquote>
    <p>[...]
    A question about Windows APIs would best be answered on Windows development forums. That is not a question for Arduino.SE</p>
  </blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>though the OP asks whether it's possible to do it using Windows stuff, wouldn't it be the role of an Arduino community to tell him that he actually can do using the Arduino hardware and no windows code? Which would make that an even better solution, as it would be portable!</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I explained albeit in few words, as to why the question was off-topic. I do not think this was at all a problem in this case.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I do not agree a question <em>that <strong>definitely</strong> has an answer</em> should be put on hold for one week in a few minutes after posting. If I could, I'd definitely vote for <code>reopen</code>, and guide the OP to understand what's wrong in his question.</p>

<p>Question closing/holding/rerouting is for keeping the knowledge base sane by keeping track of dupes, moving questions where people might get an answer or delete questions that are offending or just totally un-answerable.</p>

<p>That question applies to non of those cases, it can be answered and is definitely interesting for future readers of the forum.</p>

<p>HTH</p>
 65: <p>Questions that appear to be borderline off-topic should either:</p>

<ul>
<li>Be edited and improved to be made on-topic (by the OP or any user that understands the problem well)</li>
<li>Be voted to close (put "On Hold")</li>
</ul>

<p>The first action is preferable of course, but when not possible, we should not  hesitate from voting to close. The entire closing interface was recently redesigned to be far more simpler and easier to understand with greater emphasis on editing and reopening. The current behavior is that the question stays "On Hold" for an initial period of 7 days, during which it can be made clearer, edited and improved; and automatically get pushed into the reopen queue. The "On Hold" status clearly signals that it is a temporary state and can be lifted after improvements</p>

<p>In this specific example, I really can't see how this is "on the line". The question is specifically asking how to develop a software layer on Windows to utilize input being sent using the serial connection. </p>

<p>Lastly, to answer point by point.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>we should give it a chance as it someone knowledgeable could add facts that could reveal that the question is on-topic.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes, there is. But the OP is not interested in trying that out, as is clearly mentioned in the comments. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Although putting a question on-hold is a useful quality assurance tool, I think it was misused in this particular example, as putting a question on hold also discourages knowledgeable people from answering it, and I would like very much to know the answer to it even if the answer is just what you are saying (on the windows side).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A question about Windows APIs would best be answered on Windows development forums. That is not a question for Arduino.SE</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Instead of voting for closing, the reviewers could have edited or answered the question so that us readers would understand better why the question isn't related to Arduinos and why it's being closed. That would have been much more constructive than voting for closing it.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I explained albeit in few words, as to why the question was off-topic. I do not think this was at all a problem in this case. </p>

<p>Moreover, in general, the new help center consists of extremely well-written content accumulated from community-generated posts, which <em>does not necessitate the need for comments</em> explaining whats wrong with a question, every time a question is closed.</p>
