The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
8 edited tags
| link
7 added 252 characters in body; added 24 characters in body
source | link

There seems to be a significant asymmetry between the efforts required in closing questions versus reopening them. As a partial remedy, I propose a policy to balance this: moderators reopen the borderline questions with less hesitation, without waiting for the 5 reopen votes, if there is a reasonable request in meta for the question. (Edit: A more systematic and fair procedure for this could be like the one suggested by Bill Dubuque in his comment: "close votes could be up/down in comments maintained by moderators, and closure could be done by mods when a community agreed upon differential is reached." )

In particular I would like to see cases like these avoided: user comes to meta, asks for reopening a question, 4 reopen votes are collected, but eventually the votes expire before the question gets reopened. A moderator could have intervened here and just reopened it. There is already a bias towards staying closed, so this sort of unilateral moderator action would only help to balance the situation. If some user thinks s/he has a good answer for some question, I don't think it helps the site to stop him/her by keeping the question closed.

As far as I know, a single moderator vote is enough for a question to be reopened, or closed. There are many cases when a moderator has closed a question unilaterally, but very few cases when they reopened one, before waiting for 5 votes.

There seems to be a significant asymmetry between the efforts required in closing questions versus reopening them. As a partial remedy, I propose a policy to balance this: moderators reopen the borderline questions with less hesitation, without waiting for the 5 reopen votes, if there is a reasonable request in meta for the question.

In particular I would like to see cases like these avoided: user comes to meta, asks for reopening a question, 4 reopen votes are collected, but eventually the votes expire before the question gets reopened. A moderator could have intervened here and just reopened it. There is already a bias towards staying closed, so this sort of unilateral moderator action would only help to balance the situation. If some user thinks s/he has a good answer for some question, I don't think it helps the site to stop him/her by keeping the question closed.

As far as I know, a single moderator vote is enough for a question to be reopened, or closed. There are many cases when a moderator has closed a question unilaterally, but very few cases when they reopened one, before waiting for 5 votes.

There seems to be a significant asymmetry between the efforts required in closing questions versus reopening them. As a partial remedy, I propose a policy to balance this: moderators reopen the borderline questions with less hesitation, without waiting for the 5 reopen votes, if there is a reasonable request in meta for the question. (Edit: A more systematic and fair procedure for this could be like the one suggested by Bill Dubuque in his comment: "close votes could be up/down in comments maintained by moderators, and closure could be done by mods when a community agreed upon differential is reached." )

In particular I would like to see cases like these avoided: user comes to meta, asks for reopening a question, 4 reopen votes are collected, but eventually the votes expire before the question gets reopened. A moderator could have intervened here and just reopened it. There is already a bias towards staying closed, so this sort of unilateral moderator action would only help to balance the situation. If some user thinks s/he has a good answer for some question, I don't think it helps the site to stop him/her by keeping the question closed.

As far as I know, a single moderator vote is enough for a question to be reopened, or closed. There are many cases when a moderator has closed a question unilaterally, but very few cases when they reopened one, before waiting for 5 votes.

6 added 41 characters in body
source | link

Given that there isThere seems to be a significant asymmetry between the efforts required in closing questions versus reopening them. As a partial remedy, I I propose a policy to balance this: moderators reopen the borderline questions with less hesitation, without waiting for the 5 reopen votes, if there is a reasonable request in meta for the question.  

In particular I would like to see cases like these avoided: user comes to meta, asks for reopening a question, 4 reopen votes are collected, but eventually the votes expire before the question gets reopened. A moderator could have intervened here and just reopened it. There is already a bias towards staying closed, so this sort of unilateral moderator action would only help to balance the situation. If some user thinks s/he has a good answer for some question, I don't think it helps the site to stop him/her by keeping the question closed.

As far as I know, a single moderator vote is enough for a question to be reopened, or closed. There are many cases when a moderator has closed a question unilaterally, but very few cases when they reopened one, before waiting for 5 votes.

Given that there is a significant asymmetry between the efforts required in closing questions versus reopening them, I propose a policy to balance this: moderators reopen the borderline questions without waiting for the 5 reopen votes, if there is a reasonable request in meta for the question.  

In particular I would like to see cases like these avoided: user comes to meta, asks for reopening a question, 4 reopen votes are collected, but eventually the votes expire before the question gets reopened. A moderator could have intervened here and just reopened it. There is already a bias towards staying closed, so this sort of unilateral moderator action would only help to balance the situation. If some user thinks s/he has a good answer for some question, I don't think it helps the site to stop him/her by keeping the question closed.

As far as I know, a single moderator vote is enough for a question to be reopened, or closed. There are many cases when a moderator has closed a question unilaterally, but very few cases when they reopened one, before waiting for 5 votes.

There seems to be a significant asymmetry between the efforts required in closing questions versus reopening them. As a partial remedy, I propose a policy to balance this: moderators reopen the borderline questions with less hesitation, without waiting for the 5 reopen votes, if there is a reasonable request in meta for the question.

In particular I would like to see cases like these avoided: user comes to meta, asks for reopening a question, 4 reopen votes are collected, but eventually the votes expire before the question gets reopened. A moderator could have intervened here and just reopened it. There is already a bias towards staying closed, so this sort of unilateral moderator action would only help to balance the situation. If some user thinks s/he has a good answer for some question, I don't think it helps the site to stop him/her by keeping the question closed.

As far as I know, a single moderator vote is enough for a question to be reopened, or closed. There are many cases when a moderator has closed a question unilaterally, but very few cases when they reopened one, before waiting for 5 votes.

5 added 342 characters in body; added 19 characters in body
source | link
4 added 225 characters in body
source | link
3 deleted 53 characters in body; deleted 4 characters in body
source | link
2 added 53 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link