Timeline for Should we allow moderators to unilaterally close questions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 2014 at 10:28 | comment | added | mdp | @Hurkyl I learned it before the status bar appeared! I hadn't used the review queue for a while, but having just checked it, the only question under "reopen votes" had the description "this question was edited after being closed", so it appears this is still true. (Perhaps relevantly, the question was closed for lacking context and had been edited to include a lot more information about what the OP already does(n't) understand - I have voted to reopen!). | |
| Feb 25, 2014 at 17:34 | comment | added | user14972 | @Matt: I never knew that! I suppose that's because reopen votes don't give notification icons on my SE status bar. | |
| Feb 25, 2014 at 16:58 | comment | added | mdp | Questions that are edited after being closed are put into the review queue for reopen votes, so in theory should be reopened quickly if the edit is good. I also don't know how well this works in practice though. | |
| Feb 25, 2014 at 16:55 | comment | added | user14972 | @Michael: ... but again going back to my lack of knowledge of the distribution of life cycles, do questions get improved before accumulating a fifth close vote? | |
| Feb 25, 2014 at 16:48 | comment | added | user14972 | @Michael: If you add in that there is lag before it gets reopened, I can see that. It could be mitigated if there was a fast way to quickly reopen questions when they are improved after being put on hold. I think there are a few possibilities to improve the response time; it would be interesting to make a new topic on it. | |
| Feb 25, 2014 at 16:43 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker Mod | I think another shortcoming might be that the window of opportunity for improving the question before closure shrinks. | |
| Feb 25, 2014 at 16:20 | history | edited | user14972 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 160 characters in body
|
| Feb 25, 2014 at 16:03 | comment | added | user14972 | After thought, I can see one possible drawback: if moderators become much quicker on the draw than the rest of the community, we could eventually get to a position where the "training data" for classifying the eventual fate of a question would become tainted. | |
| Feb 25, 2014 at 15:56 | history | edited | user14972 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Feb 25, 2014 at 15:49 | history | answered | user14972 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |