If a question that I voted to close comes around in the Reopen queue, is there a community standard for voting on it? Most of the time if the question is fatally flawed (lower-quality duplicate, clear and damning lack of details, 'do my homework') I will vote 'Leave Closed'. If the question is markedly improved it's more of a case-by-case thing. But I guess I'm asking if it's seen as poor form to even vote on such questions, as reopening is almost by definition asking for a second opinion.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
10
-
12$\begingroup$ (1) You are allowed to change your opinion. (2) If you voted to close, that means that you saw something is wrong with the question, so you should be able to point out whether or not it was fixed in your opinion. One thing you shouldn't do is vote to close just to "get it reopened faster", we consider this to be an abuse of voting privileges when it happens continuously. $\endgroup$– Asaf Karagila ModAug 20, 2020 at 14:15
-
9$\begingroup$ "Voting to close to get it reopened faster": wait, what? How does that work and why would one do that? $\endgroup$– IntegrandAug 20, 2020 at 14:19
-
5$\begingroup$ Let's not give people any more ideas, yes? $\endgroup$– Asaf Karagila ModAug 20, 2020 at 14:21
-
11$\begingroup$ Having voted to close it previously, you are extremely well-placed to see if the question has been improved or not. So I think it is a good thing to vote on such questions in the review queue. (If someone thinks a question has been closed unfairly, whence a "second opinion" would be needed, then they can ask in this meta thread, or elsewhere, or can comment on the question giving their case. If they comment on the question and you still think it should be closed then I think it is often (but not always...) a good idea to comment back.) $\endgroup$– user1729Aug 20, 2020 at 14:34
-
2$\begingroup$ Even if the flaws remain, you may think that other people wanting it reopened is sufficient counterpoint to that fact. Then there's nothing wrong with abstaining or voting to reopen either - especially if the flaws are relatively minor and comments indicate the appetite of users to help each other is high. $\endgroup$– it's a hire car babyAug 22, 2020 at 11:47
-
2$\begingroup$ @samerivertwice: I disagree. When I vote, I indicate my opinion of the Question; when others vote the other way, they indicate the opposite opinion, and the disagreement is nicely summed up in the vote tally. If people vote on the basis of something other than the Question itself, then the meaning of the tally is obscured. If other people voting is enough to change my opinion, then I ought to abstain from the start, because I don't have a strong opinion on the subject. Voting for whatever I see others voting for is worse than voting randomly. $\endgroup$– BetaAug 30, 2020 at 14:50
-
1$\begingroup$ @Beta I disagree because we have choose how aggressively to impose our will on others. When there are askers and answerers wanting to come together, some users (like me) will think live and let live. Others will be more restrictive and controlling of others' activity. In my experience, this tends to partition users into those who see the site as a place where great content is curated (perhaps you?) and those seeing the site as a place where people with questions come together with people having answers (me). $\endgroup$– it's a hire car babyAug 30, 2020 at 16:05
-
1$\begingroup$ @Beta Moreover, the reopeners don't get a vote in the initial close. It's a one-side vote; it doesn't measure both points of view, so it can actually just indicate a lot of activity on a question. In statistical terms, its not an unbiased estimator of closure intent because it has a very strong bias in favour of closing questions with greater activity. Once reopeners come in & vote, they've just had their equal say. If the closers come in and vote again, a 3:2 ratio of openers to closers will result in minority rule. Moderators eventually have to get involved with tit-for-tat close-reopening $\endgroup$– it's a hire car babyAug 30, 2020 at 16:09
-
1$\begingroup$ @samerivertwice: We are disagreeing about the most constructive way to use votes; please don't make insinuations about my character and motives. $\endgroup$– BetaAug 30, 2020 at 16:31
-
1$\begingroup$ @Beta I apologise if "choosing how aggressively to impose our will on others" came across as an insinuation about your character, it wasn't intended as such. It's a simple statement of fact that we have to make that choice. If people want to be able to ask a certain kind of question and others want to keep it open so they can answer it, but I'm in a group whose curation criteria render it, in our view, inappropriate for the site, then we categorically do have to make a call whether our curation aims justify imposing our will on those other people and stopping them, it's just a fact. $\endgroup$– it's a hire car babyAug 30, 2020 at 16:37
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
If you voted to close a question and if are asked whether or not it should be reopened, there is no reason for you not to reevaluate it. And if it turns out that the flaws that made you vote for closing it remain there, then go ahead: vote that it should not be reopened. There is nothing wrong with that.
answered Aug 20, 2020 at 16:20