3
$\begingroup$

When someone votes to close a question, and I agree that it should be closed, but for a different reason, and the question ultimately is closed, the box displayed suggests that I agreed it should be closed for the original (or most popular?) reason. Since that box should serve to show the OP what they need to do to get their question reopened, I think it would be good to:

  1. Allow each closer to choose more than one closure reason,
  2. Allow users voting against reopening to choose a reason different from the original one, and
  3. List all reasons chosen in the box.

As it stands, something may be closed as "unclear what you're asking" or "lacks context" when it's also actually not about mathematics and thus has little hope of ever being reopened. Making that clear to the asker could save them the work of clarifying or adding context to such a question.

Note: Although this has happened several times, the most recent was https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/505198/how-to-statistically-model-evolution#comment1084600_505198, which was closed as unclear, but which I believe, if clarified, would ultimately turn out to be off-topic (it looks more like a creationist polemic than a bona fide mathematical question).

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I wonder if any question has received 5 different close vote reasons. I.e., it's an unclear opinion-based duplicate question that's too broad and off-topic. $\endgroup$ – Douglas S. Stones Sep 26 '13 at 1:27
  • $\begingroup$ while we're at it we should take Joriki's suggestion here to confront the asymmetry in the ease of closing verse the ease of reopening. See meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1869/… $\endgroup$ – James S. Cook Sep 26 '13 at 2:25
  • $\begingroup$ The example question was fuzzily worded but clear enough, and mathematically answerable. The motivation might be related to a stance on evolution, but it is a mathematics question. $\endgroup$ – zyx Sep 26 '13 at 4:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @zyx, it was fuzzy enoguth that I didn't understand it. It seemed that the question was really about whether a certain biological event could be modeled as a set (infinite, apparently) of independent outcomes, each of probability $1/2$. That question really is about science, not math. The answer is clearly "no", but not for mathematical reasons. Is $\lim_{n\to\infty}1/2^n=0$? Well, yes, but the OP knew that already. $\endgroup$ – dfeuer Sep 26 '13 at 4:47
  • $\begingroup$ Well, check out the comments, which were pretty good in my biased opinion. $\endgroup$ – zyx Sep 26 '13 at 4:54
  • $\begingroup$ @zyx, the question was withdrawn, and I'm not a 10k repper. $\endgroup$ – dfeuer Sep 26 '13 at 5:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is a feature request at meta.SO: Distinguish votes by close reason. This is basically your 3-rd point. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Sep 26 '13 at 9:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are always free to leave a comment explaining, in 600 characters or less, your exact reason for voting to close. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Sep 26 '13 at 9:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This question has two reasons for closing. $\endgroup$ – Joel Reyes Noche Sep 26 '13 at 12:17
  • $\begingroup$ The comments under the linked question addressed the mathematical assumptions in the query, including the inability to multiply probabilities and the need to allow a much wider range of outcomes (all comparable ones) in order to conduct a hypothesis test. That question seems like a particularly good place to say those things and have them on the record, if it is intended to be anti-evolution, because similar arguments keep coming up. (Sorry, I forgot the 10k thing.) $\endgroup$ – zyx Sep 27 '13 at 1:14
  • $\begingroup$ Related. $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Sep 27 '13 at 18:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .