The stack exchange network recently got a new question page). With it comes an expansion of customization for the individual site (which needs to be implemented by a Community Manager, who will do that following a meta on the site).

What guidance, changes, additions, and/or warnings do we want to add to the new ask a question page, to help new users?

For example, we can prompt new users to specify a jurisdiction (and explain what a jurisdiction is).

The list of customizable fields is summarized by JNat in the MSE post under the "What's per-site customizable, and what's the procedure to get it live?" heading.

All thoughts and suggestions welcome.

  • 1
    For those of us who are lazy or can't find the actual pop-up, how much real estate is there available for said guidance (in letters, I suppose)?
    – user6726
    Mar 15, 2020 at 14:42
  • "we can prompt new users to specify a jurisdiction" The need for specifying a jurisdiction largely depends on the type & nature of the question. Making it a required field would give new users the mistaken impression that everything else (whether it is an answer, an authority, or any other resource) outside their jurisdiction is totally useless, and answerers should not bear the burden of having to clarify each time that that is not the case. Mar 18, 2020 at 12:09

1 Answer 1


The two biggest problems we face are lack of particular jurisdiction and requesting specific legal advice.

I don't think anything else is remotely close to being an issue that needs general attention drawn to it.

  • We need a large pre-warning that Law SE is not for specific legal advice. If the answer will hinge on details of their particular case, it is not appropriate for Law SE (they need a lawyer). If the answer will not hinge on details of their particular case, those details should not be included in the first place (they are irrelevant noise).

  • Directions to correcting the above should be included in the review/error catching section, likely best done by linking to a meta question (either current or written for purpose).

  • The tag review/error correction should, if possible, catch questions that lack a jurisdiction tag (including and . Otherwise a general note to remind users at this step will have to do, as we can't force tags by type technically.

  • Good. Please lay out how you think this should be done given the limitations in the link.
    – Dale M Mod
    Mar 17, 2020 at 21:21
  • New features should be used for something more innovative than yet another "pre-warning that Law SE is not for specific legal advice". In fact, most often what makes questions interesting is that they involve particular details insofar as they require more than just a trivial application of legal principles. If all us rushed to suppress these interesting questions, the only ones that would remain on Law SE would be those about the legality of Trump's latest occurrence and few other pointless "curiosities". Mar 18, 2020 at 12:00

You must log in to answer this question.

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