While I realize there are some examples when it may be obvious that one of the categories applies, in many cases a bad question could fit both categories. In most of these cases, the question is usually quite short and devoid of any code that exemplifies the issue the poster is having.

For reference, here are the current descriptions of both:

[![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SAe66.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SAe66.png)

Specifically, the wording asking for the poster of the question to:

> 
> clarify your specific problem or add additional details
> 
> 
> 

or to:

> 
> edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail
> 
> 
> 

make very similar requests. So similar that I question whether the two categories are useful for the original poster or just cognitive dissonance for the users voting to close the question?

By being closed by either category, the original poster is already aware that there is something wrong with the question, and being asked to clarify it is true for both categories.

Why is this a problem? Because, if even a small number of users get to the pop-up window with these options and then decide to close the window because they don't want to be bothered to decide between these categories, then a bad question has more opportunity to survive. I know I have done this before and I doubt I am the only one.