2 added 63 characters in body
source | link

This raises the question (sorry, but this is too long for a comment):

What is the purpose of the meta thread for reopen requests?

Supposedly it is only to be used for "clear-cut cases". One possible criterion for that is "most reasonable people would vote to reopen it".

But then, isn't that precisely what the reopen review queue is for? Any question with active reopen votes gets pushed to that queue. If it is completely obvious that the question should be reopened, then it will be reopened through the review process. It's even possible to add a comment for reviewers to questions, as those appear during the review process. And it is, as far as I know, official policy to mention in the main thread that a meta discussion has been opened -- so a comment would appear no matter what.

So the only reason to post in that meta thread is when you believe you need to argue your point and it could generate some discussion. I can quote my own comment from that other meta thread:

My opinion is that the asker should first post on the main thread, and then if there is a need for a lot of further discussion, a new thread should be opened. Requests for reopening will almost always generate at least small amounts of discussion, it's what the comment section is for.

So in conclusion, I think it makes sense to force users to use the main thread. It was created to clean up the front page of meta. Closing is, I think, the best course of action for a question that should never have been asked in the first place (and instead been made into an "answer" to the main thread).


As for the two cases you linked, that's more debatable, but:

  • The first one basically wanted to continue the discussion from the main thread on meta. "In particular: does the author make valid points?", "a question I'd like to discuss". To me, it sounds a lot like the asker wanted to have the question reopened.

  • The second one is anyway a duplicate of the many meta questions about automatic deletion, and a google search would have given the answer. My opinion (yes, again) is that this was a roundabout way to get the question to be undeleted (which he did get, but then it was deleted again by Community). Considering that, closing as a duplicate of the main thread makes sense. Edit: Actually, I just noticed that the reference to the "Community" user deleting a question and the score requirement were added afterwards by someone else. This changes a bit the context of the question, because someone knowing that it's the user "Community" that deletes the question, and talks about score requirements, would probably know the underlying process... So I'm not so sure about that case. But the general point stands.

This raises the question (sorry, but this is too long for a comment):

What is the purpose of the meta thread for reopen requests?

Supposedly it is only to be used for "clear-cut cases". One possible criterion for that is "most reasonable people would vote to reopen it".

But then, isn't that precisely what the reopen review queue is for? Any question with active reopen votes gets pushed to that queue. If it is completely obvious that the question should be reopened, then it will be reopened through the review process. It's even possible to add a comment for reviewers to questions, as those appear during the review process. And it is, as far as I know, official policy to mention in the main thread that a meta discussion has been opened -- so a comment would appear no matter what.

So the only reason to post in that meta thread is when you believe you need to argue your point and it could generate some discussion. I can quote my own comment from that other meta thread:

My opinion is that the asker should first post on the main thread, and then if there is a need for a lot of further discussion, a new thread should be opened. Requests for reopening will almost always generate at least small amounts of discussion, it's what the comment section is for.

So in conclusion, I think it makes sense to force users to use the main thread. It was created to clean up the front page of meta. Closing is, I think, the best course of action for a question that should never have been asked in the first place (and instead been made into an "answer" to the main thread).


As for the two cases you linked, that's more debatable, but:

  • The first one basically wanted to continue the discussion from the main thread on meta. "In particular: does the author make valid points?", "a question I'd like to discuss". To me, it sounds a lot like the asker wanted to have the question reopened.

  • The second one is anyway a duplicate of the many meta questions about automatic deletion, and a google search would have given the answer. My opinion (yes, again) is that this was a roundabout way to get the question to be undeleted. Considering that, closing as a duplicate of the main thread makes sense.

This raises the question (sorry, but this is too long for a comment):

What is the purpose of the meta thread for reopen requests?

Supposedly it is only to be used for "clear-cut cases". One possible criterion for that is "most reasonable people would vote to reopen it".

But then, isn't that precisely what the reopen review queue is for? Any question with active reopen votes gets pushed to that queue. If it is completely obvious that the question should be reopened, then it will be reopened through the review process. It's even possible to add a comment for reviewers to questions, as those appear during the review process. And it is, as far as I know, official policy to mention in the main thread that a meta discussion has been opened -- so a comment would appear no matter what.

So the only reason to post in that meta thread is when you believe you need to argue your point and it could generate some discussion. I can quote my own comment from that other meta thread:

My opinion is that the asker should first post on the main thread, and then if there is a need for a lot of further discussion, a new thread should be opened. Requests for reopening will almost always generate at least small amounts of discussion, it's what the comment section is for.

So in conclusion, I think it makes sense to force users to use the main thread. It was created to clean up the front page of meta. Closing is, I think, the best course of action for a question that should never have been asked in the first place (and instead been made into an "answer" to the main thread).


As for the two cases you linked, that's more debatable, but:

  • The first one basically wanted to continue the discussion from the main thread on meta. "In particular: does the author make valid points?", "a question I'd like to discuss". To me, it sounds a lot like the asker wanted to have the question reopened.

  • The second one is anyway a duplicate of the many meta questions about automatic deletion, and a google search would have given the answer. My opinion (yes, again) is that this was a roundabout way to get the question to be undeleted (which he did get, but then it was deleted again by Community). Considering that, closing as a duplicate of the main thread makes sense. Edit: Actually, I just noticed that the reference to the "Community" user deleting a question and the score requirement were added afterwards by someone else. This changes a bit the context of the question, because someone knowing that it's the user "Community" that deletes the question, and talks about score requirements, would probably know the underlying process... So I'm not so sure about that case. But the general point stands.

1
source | link

This raises the question (sorry, but this is too long for a comment):

What is the purpose of the meta thread for reopen requests?

Supposedly it is only to be used for "clear-cut cases". One possible criterion for that is "most reasonable people would vote to reopen it".

But then, isn't that precisely what the reopen review queue is for? Any question with active reopen votes gets pushed to that queue. If it is completely obvious that the question should be reopened, then it will be reopened through the review process. It's even possible to add a comment for reviewers to questions, as those appear during the review process. And it is, as far as I know, official policy to mention in the main thread that a meta discussion has been opened -- so a comment would appear no matter what.

So the only reason to post in that meta thread is when you believe you need to argue your point and it could generate some discussion. I can quote my own comment from that other meta thread:

My opinion is that the asker should first post on the main thread, and then if there is a need for a lot of further discussion, a new thread should be opened. Requests for reopening will almost always generate at least small amounts of discussion, it's what the comment section is for.

So in conclusion, I think it makes sense to force users to use the main thread. It was created to clean up the front page of meta. Closing is, I think, the best course of action for a question that should never have been asked in the first place (and instead been made into an "answer" to the main thread).


As for the two cases you linked, that's more debatable, but:

  • The first one basically wanted to continue the discussion from the main thread on meta. "In particular: does the author make valid points?", "a question I'd like to discuss". To me, it sounds a lot like the asker wanted to have the question reopened.

  • The second one is anyway a duplicate of the many meta questions about automatic deletion, and a google search would have given the answer. My opinion (yes, again) is that this was a roundabout way to get the question to be undeleted. Considering that, closing as a duplicate of the main thread makes sense.