Yes, the question needed clarification.
This suggested edit attempted to provide clarification.
Yes it made a calculated presumption. But that presumption was by far the most likely intent of the OP. What else could they have possibly meant? A generic spiral is called a "spiral". The OP demonstrated they already know the word "spiral." After all, they used the word "spiral" in the question!
The way we handled this question was a comedy of one error after another:
- This question illustrates perfectly the problem with putting answers in comments, even if they are intended to ask for clarification. My guess is that once the OP saw flolilolilo's comment with a link to the Wikipedia entry for Fibonacci Spiral, the OP followed the link, found the answer he was looking for, never to return to SE to clarify the question.
- Why we insist on linking to external sources when we have good information on the topic in existing questions within the site here is beyond me. If flolilolilo had done a simple search for "Fibonacci" within Photo.SE instead of at Wikipedia, the OP would have been able to follow a link that kept them engaged within our site instead of being sent to Wikipedia.
- We closed a question as Unclear what you're asking when it could have just as legitimately been closed as a duplicate which would serve to point others who might find this question via stack exchange's very good SEO and actually be pointed in the direction of the information they are seeking within the Photography.SE ecosystem.
- We downvoted a question for not being clear, we rejected an edit that clarified it with the highly probable intention of the OP, then we closed the question for being unclear, yet at the same time we upvote (without dissent) an answer that guesses the exact same thing as the rejected edit!
Due to the way suggested edits by low rep users are handled by the system, only two users with relatively low reps can kill a suggested edit.
Considering this is a global community with users who access the site at various times throughout a 24 hour period, there needs to be a mechanism where an edit request is easily accessible without needing a direct link address for longer than it takes between the suggested edit and the 2 (two) votes required to reject the edit. Even a very high rep user can not now tell from looking at the question that an edit had ever been attempted. Since the contents of an edit request are not visible in the body of a question until approved, perhaps rejecting edits should require more than two votes?
Or perhaps even better, would we find an option when voting on things in the review que to 'ask me again in 24 hours' to be helpful?
My main issue with summarily rejecting the edit because we aren't 100% certain beyond any conceivable shadow of a doubt that it matches the intent of the OP is that the question is essentially totally useless without it.
By rejecting an edit that many of us may have felt was useful and helpful, only two users were able to decide the fate of the question before the rest of us had an opportunity to weigh in on the suggested edit. Then the question was ultimately closed for being unclear. Yet an edit that clarified the overwhelmingly probable meaning of the question was allowed to be derailed by only two users.
How can we act in a more proactive way to encourage improving and saving imperfect questions rather than seemingly wanting to find any excuse possible to close as many as we can?
How can we find a way to use closed questions to point the OP (and others who find the question with a desire to learn the same thing) to relevant information contained in other questions/answers here instead of closing them in a way that provides the OP and anyone else who may have the same question with nothing helpful?