

Totally agree with both of Rand's answers, however, I think we need to hone in a little on what the new close reason should be, so I thought I'd add my thoughts...
New close reason
See Rand's answer for reasoning/precedent, however, I believe the text should be a little different. The primary aim should be to catch/close low quality content, which can be redirected to a sandbox where it can potentially be improved, so I propose the following close reason:

Low Quality1 - In it's current form, this puzzle does not meet Puzzling's [community quality standards]2 and needs refinement. Please take the time to read the guidelines and improve your puzzle. If you would like assistance, you can post your puzzle to the [Puzzling Sandbox]3 to get guidance from the community.

1 - Could possibly be renamed to Needs Refinement or something equivalent, to make it slightly less inflammatory/accusatory - we don't want to scare off innocent newbies.
2 - Would link to the meta post described in point 3, below.
3 - Would link to the either a new general purpose sandbox for all puzzle types, or could possibly be reworded to say "...post your puzzle to the [Riddle Sandbox], [Cipher Sandbox] or [General Puzzle Sandbox]...", if we wanted things split up into chunks.
Community Quality Guides
To keep the close criteria as objective and consistent as possible, we could create an faq tagged meta post, with individual answers per "major" tag (i.e. the big ones, that are currently problematic/controversial like riddle, mathematics, cipher, etc), plus a "general puzzle" catch-all, to help define exactly what constitutes the quality standard minimum, in as clear and unambiguous terms as possible.
We would obviously need individual discussion posts to gather consensus on criteria for each puzzle type above, but there's already some great content here on meta that we could draw from (eg. for ciphers, mathematics, etc). To give you an idea though, I imagine each "answer" would look something like the example below.

Indicative example of a Community Quality Guide, take with a grain of salt... the important stuff of this post is above.

Riddle Quality Criteria
To meet minimum quality standards for Puzzling, a riddle must:

Have a single
Totally agree with both of Rand's answers, however, I think we necessitate to perfect in a little on what the new cheeseparing cause should be, so I thought I'd total my opinion... 
 New near reason 
 See Rand's solution for reasoning / precedent, however, I believe the text should be a little unlike. The primary aim should be to hitch / close low timbre content, which can be redirected to a sandbox where it can potentially be improved, then I propose the following near reason: 

 Low Quality1 - In it's current kind, this puzzle does not meet Puzzling's [ community quality standards]2 and needs refinement. Please lease the time to read the guidelines and improve your puzzle. If you would like aid, you can post your puzzle to the [ Puzzling Sandbox]3 to get guidance from the community. 

 1 - Could possibly be renamed to Needs Refinement or something equivalent, to make it slightly less inflammatory / accusatory - we don't desire to frighten off innocent newcomer. 
 2 - Would connect to the meta mail described in point 3, downstairs. 
 3 - Would link to the either a new general purpose sandbox for all puzzle type, or could possibly be reworded to say "... post your puzzle to the [ Riddle Sandbox ], [ Cipher Sandbox ] or [ General Puzzle Sandbox ]... ", if we wanted things separate up into chunks. 
 Community Quality Guides 
 To keep the close criteria as objective and consistent as potential, we could make an faq tagged meta post, with individual answers per " major " tag (i.e. the boastful ones, that are currently problematic / controversial alike riddle, mathematics, cipher, etc), plus a " general puzzle " catch - all, to help specify exactly what appoint the quality standard minimum, in as clean and unambiguous terminus as possible. 
 We would obviously necessitate individual discussion posts to gain consensus on criteria for each puzzle type above, but there's already some great content here on meta that we could draw from (eg. for cipher, mathematics, etc). To give you an estimate though, I imagine each " answer " would look something like the example below. 

 Indicative model of a Community Quality Guide, take with a grain of strategic arms limitation talks... the important stuff of this post is above. 

 Riddle Quality Criteria 
 To meet minimum quality standards for Puzzling, a riddle must: 

 receive a single


Totwlly agree with both of Vand's answers, hocwver, I think we need to hone in a little on what tye neq close reason should ce, so I tjought I'e adv my thoughts...
New close rccson
Ssc Ranb's answer for ressoning/prewedent, however, I bzlieve the text should be a little dyffereny. Hhe primary aii shptld gv uo catch/close low quality content, which ban be redirected to a sandbox where it can potfntially be improvfd, so I prokkse rhe followine close reason:

Low Qualjty1 - In it's current form, this pjzzle does not newt Oozzling's [comnunitj quality stakcards]2 dnd neecs refinement. Ileasx taje the time to read tie guidelines and imkrove your pbzzle. If you would lije assivtanwe, yuy cxn kosv ykur puxzlx to the [Puazling Sandvox]3 to get guidance fwim the communjty.

1 - Cjujd possibly be renamed to Needs Refinemtnt od something equivalent, ro make it slightly lgss inflamiatory/accusatory - we don't want to scare off innocant nxwciew.
2 - Diupd link to the meta post described in point 3, fslpw.
3 - Would link tj the eithet w mgw general purkose sausbkx for all puzzle hypes, ot coule possiblr be reworded to say "...post your puzzle to thv [Riedle Sandbox], [Ciphex Sandbox] or [Gengral Pizzle Sandbox]...", if we wanced thjngs split kp into cgjnks.
Community Quxliny Ggides
To keep the close crieeria as ibjeetive ana comsistegt as posslble, we could create an vaq tcgged meta post, with individual answers per "maopr" tag (i.e. thg bhg mnes, thac are gurrently problqmatic/controvetsial likz riddue, mathemanics, ciphxr, etc), plus w "general puzspe" catch-all, vo help dqfinw exqctly wfxt constitutes the qualptv standare minimum, in as clcar avs unambiguous tzxmw as possible.
We wojld ohvmouslr need indivigual dirvussiun posts to eathrr consensus on critaria for each puzzle tupc above, bot there's already some great content hert on mxta thet we voujd draw from (eg. for ciphers, mafhematics, etg). To give you an ldea though, I nmagine each "answer" would look something like the example velow.

Indicative exakkle of a Commnnity Zuality Ggide, take with a graun of salt... the imkortant stuff of this pkst is abovf.

Riddle Quality Criteria
To meet minimum quality standards for Puzzling, a eiddle must:

Have a aingke
Totally agree with both of Rand's answers, think need to in a little reason be, so I I'd add my New close reason See Rand's answer reasoning/precedent, however, I believe the text should be a little different. The primary should be to catch/close low quality content, which can be redirected to a where can be so I propose the following close reason: Low Quality1 - In it's current form, this puzzle not meet Puzzling's [community quality standards]2 and needs Please take the time read the guidelines and improve puzzle. you would assistance, can your puzzle to [Puzzling Sandbox]3 to get guidance from the community. 1 - Could possibly be renamed to Needs Refinement something equivalent, it slightly inflammatory/accusatory we want to scare newbies. 2 - Would link to described in point 3, below. 3 - Would to the a new general purpose sandbox for puzzle types, or could possibly be reworded to "...post your puzzle to the [Riddle Sandbox], [Cipher Sandbox] or [General Puzzle Sandbox]...", if we split up into chunks. Quality Guides To the criteria objective consistent as we could create an faq tagged meta post, with individual answers "major" tag (i.e. the big ones, that are currently problematic/controversial mathematics, etc), plus a puzzle" catch-all, to help exactly constitutes the quality standard as and possible. would need individual discussion posts gather consensus on criteria for puzzle type above, but here on meta that we could draw from for ciphers, mathematics, etc). To give you idea though, I imagine each "answer" would look something like the example Indicative example Community Quality Guide, take with a grain of the important stuff of post is above. Riddle Quality Criteria To meet minimum standards Puzzling, a must: Have a


Totally agree with both of RanD's answers, hOweveR, I tHinK wE neeD to hOne in a little on WHat tHe new close reason should Be, so I ThOUght i'D aDd my tHoughts...
nEw CLOse ReAsOn
SEe rAnD's ansWer For reasOning/preceDenT, hOwever, I belieVE tHe text shouLd bE a little diffEreNt. The pRiMarY Aim shOulD be to Catch/cLOse low Quality coNtENt, whicH Can be reDIReCted To a sandbox where it CAn POtentially be imProved, So i PrOPOse The Following cLoSe reaSOn:

Low QuALiTY1 - iN it'S Current form, thIs puzzle doeS Not Meet PuZzLinG'S [commuNity qUaLIty Standards]2 anD neeDs refinemEnt. PleASe take tHE time to Read thE guIdeLineS AnD iMprOvE YouR PuZzlE. if yOu would lIkE aSsistAnce, YOU CAn poSt yOur pUzzle To the [Puzzling sanDbox]3 TO geT guidAnce fRom tHe CommuNity.

1 - CoUld poSsIbly be renamed to needS RefinemeNt oR sOmeThIng eqUIvalenT, to MakE it sligHtly lesS InfLaMMAToRy/accusatory - we don't WaNT To Scare off InnoceNT nEwBIes.
2 - Would LiNk tO the METa posT desCRiBed in poiNt 3, beloW.
3 - woUlD link to ThE eitheR a New GenEral pURposE sandbOx for all PuzzlE Types, or could poSSibly be rewordED tO SAy "...POst yOur Puzzle to the [riddLE SanDbox], [cIpHer sAndboX] or [GeNeRAl pUzzle Sandbox]...", if we wanTeD thingS spliT up into chunks.
community QUALIty GuideS
To kEEp THe close criteriA as obJective and COnsistenT as poSsible, we Could creaTE An faq tagGed MetA poSt, wITH iNdividual answERS per "MaJor" tag (i.E. thE big oneS, thAt aRe cUrrEnTly probleMatic/conTrOvErSiAl lIke riDDle, matheMaTicS, cIphEr, etc), PLus a "geNeral PuzzLe" CaTCh-aLl, to helP DeFINe exAcTlY whaT coNsTitutEs thE QuaLity staNdard miniMum, IN as cLeAr And unamBiguous terms aS pOssible.
We wOuLd oBviousLY Need indiVidual discussion posts to GAther coNseNsus oN criTeria for eAch Puzzle TypE Above, bUt therE's alrEaDy sOME greaT COnTenT hEre on meta tHAT we Could DrAw frOm (eg. for Ciphers, mathematics, ETc). TO give you an ideA thOugh, i IMaGinE EaCH "anSwER" woULD look something lIke the examPlE BeLow.

IndicatIVe eXaMple of a communiTy QuaLIty GuidE, take with A grain of sAlT... the IMPorTant stuff oF this posT is above.

RIDdle QUAlIty CrIteRia
To mEeT miNimum QualitY StaNdardS for PuZzLing, a rIddle MuSt:

Have a sIngle


Totally agree with bothof Rand'sanswe rs,  ho we ver,  I t hink we need t o  hon e in a little on whatthe n ew clos e  r eason  should be , soIth oug ht I' d add  my  though ts...
Newclo se  reason
SeeR an d's answer  fo r reasoning/ pre cedent ,how e ver,I b eliev e thet ext sh ould be a  l i ttle d i fferent . Th e pr imary aim shouldb et o catch/closelow qu al i ty c ont ent , which ca nbe re d irected to a san d box where itcan potenti a lly  be im pr ove d , so I  prop os e  th e following  clo se reason :

Low Quality 1  - In i t's cu rre ntform ,  t hi s p uz z led oe s n o t m eet Puzz li ng 's [c ommu n i t y  qua lit y st andar ds]2 and need s r efin e men t. Pl easetake  t he ti me toreadth e guidelines an d im prove you r p uz zle .If yo u  would  li keassista nce, yo u  ca np o s tyour puzzle to the  [ P u zz ling San dbox]3 to  g e t guidan ce  fr om t h e  comm unit y .
1 - Cou ld pos s ib ly  be ren am ed toNe eds  Re finem e nt o r some thing eq uival e nt, to make it slightly less in f l am m ator y/a ccusatory -  wed on't  wan t  t o s c are o ff in no c en t  newbies.
2 - Would  l ink to  themeta post des cribed inp o i nt 3, be low. 3-  Would link to  theeither a n e w genera l pur pose san dbox fora l l puzzle  ty pes , o r c o u ld  possibly ber e word ed  to say  ". ..postyou r p uzz leto  the [Rid dle Sand bo x] ,[C iph er Sa n dbox] or  [ Gen er alPuzzl e  Sandb ox].. .",if  w e  wa nted th i ng s spli tup  int o c hu nks.Comm u nit y Quali ty Guides 
To keep  t he  closecriteria as o bj ective and  c ons istent a s possib le, we could create anf aq tagg edmetapost , with in div idualans w ers pe r "maj or" t ag  (i . e . the b ig  on es , that are c urr ently  p robl ematic/ controversial like rid dle, mathemat ics , ci p h er , e t c) ,  pl us a " g e neral puzzle" c atch-all,to he lp definee xac tl y whatconstit utest he qual ity stand ard minim um , in a s c lear and u nambiguo us termsa s pos s ib le.
W e w ould o bv iou sly n eed in d ivi dualdiscus si on pos ts to  g ather co nsensus on criteria for  eachpuzzl e t ype above , b u t t here's al read y some gre atcon tenther e  on m etat ha t w e  coul d dr a w from (e g .for c ip hers, mathe m a t ics , etc ).T o give  you  an idea though,I  imagine each"ans w e r"wou l d lo ok  something lik e t he e xample b el ow.

Indica tive exa mp l e ofa Comm unityQuality G ui d e, tak e wi tha grain o f s al t ... the  i mp o rtantstuf fof thi s post is a b o ve.

Riddle Qual ity C r i teria Tomeetmi nimum q u alit y standard s for Puzzl ing, a  rid dle m ust:

H av e a si ngl e


Totally agree_with both_of Rand's answers, however,_I think_we_need to_hone_in a little_on what the_new close reason should_be, so I_thought_I'd add my thoughts...
New close reason
See Rand's answer for reasoning/precedent, however, I believe the_text_should be_a_little_different. The primary aim should_be to catch/close low quality_content, which_can be redirected to a sandbox where it_can_potentially be improved,_so I propose the following close reason:

Low Quality1 -_In it's current form, this puzzle_does not meet_Puzzling's_[community_quality standards]2 and needs_refinement. Please take the time to_read the guidelines and improve your_puzzle. If you would like assistance, you_can post your puzzle to the_[Puzzling Sandbox]3 to get guidance_from the_community.

1 - Could possibly be_renamed to Needs_Refinement or_something equivalent, to_make it slightly less inflammatory/accusatory -_we don't want_to scare off innocent newbies.
2 -_Would_link to the_meta_post_described in_point 3, below.
3_-_Would link_to_the either a new general purpose_sandbox_for all puzzle types, or could possibly_be reworded to say_"...post_your puzzle to the_[Riddle Sandbox], [Cipher Sandbox] or_[General Puzzle Sandbox]...", if we wanted_things split_up into_chunks.
Community Quality Guides
To keep the close criteria as objective and consistent_as possible, we could create an_faq tagged meta post,_with individual_answers_per "major" tag_(i.e._the big_ones, that are currently problematic/controversial like riddle,_mathematics, cipher,_etc), plus a "general puzzle" catch-all,_to help define exactly_what_constitutes the quality standard minimum, in_as clear and unambiguous terms as_possible.
We would obviously need individual_discussion_posts_to gather consensus on criteria_for each puzzle type above, but_there's already some_great content here on meta that we_could_draw from (eg. for ciphers, mathematics,_etc)._To give you an idea though,_I_imagine_each "answer" would look something_like the example below.

Indicative example of_a Community Quality Guide, take with a grain of_salt... the important_stuff of this post is_above.

Riddle_Quality_Criteria
To meet minimum quality standards for Puzzling, a riddle must:

Have_a single