1
$\begingroup$

There's a recent discussion in the main meta Testing three-vote close and reopen on 13 network sites.

So I am wondering, as a few posts have 2,3, or even 4 close votes that haven't been closed/resolved, should we request for 3-vote close and reopens change to applied to our site as well?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ My personal opinion is no. I think that would create a lot of back and forth. In cases where you think it's obvious a question needs to be closed or reopened, you can always flag for moderator intervention if it's having trouble getting enough attention. $\endgroup$
    – called2voyage Mod
    May 4 at 15:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "So I am wondering, as a few posts have 2,3, or even 4 close votes that haven't been closed/resolved..." meta questions always benefit from and garner credibility from specific examples. Can you add links to these recent examples of this issue? If there aren't any, then perhaps there isn't any issue. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 5 at 5:47
4
$\begingroup$

No, this controversial proposal to "close early, close often" is probably meant to apply to fast-paced sites where there isn't enough time to consider the merits of each question carefully, have a dialogue with the OP and see improvement's can't be made efficiently without all the question-closing drama and trauma1.

When there is no substantial danger posed by the possibility of a less-than-ideal answer begin posted, then the 2, 3, 4 close votes eventually decaying back to zero is a good thing. It shows there weren't a full 5 people who felt strongly enough about answer-prevention that an answer-blocking hold should be placed.

Low question-rate sites with good, healthy communities can do nicely with the standard SE features, no need to add something exotic or experiment on our new users.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


1New users and especially when asking their first question can easily be turned of by getting their question quickly closed and any answers blocked. So for this low question-rate fairly sleepy site that certainly doesn't have an overabundance of new users joining per week, I think we should avoid an fast-paced-site solution.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Agreed! I don't think our site has a problem with getting 5 close votes for questions that clearly need to be closed. Recent example: astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/43651/…. Our moderators also have no problem unilaterally closing questions, and we don't have an undo burden on moderators for closure (which are reasons sited in the referenced meta post for lowering the vote count). $\endgroup$
    – Connor Garcia Mod
    May 5 at 15:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I fully agree with "If it ain't broke, dont't fix it" - I never felt that this was an issue. I actually enjoy that questions are not closed with light-speed. $\endgroup$
    – B--rian
    May 7 at 11:59

You must log in to answer this question.

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