1
$\begingroup$

Now what is the point in having a civilized meta thread about closing a specific question when people just go right ahead and do it anway?!?!!?

The meta thread in question had only one answer (mine), with more upvotes than the original question, advocating the question be kept open. Noone had put forward a counter-argument, least of all an upvoted one, but the casting closure vote was clicked anyway.

I suspect this is probably simply a result of there not being a meta link to the closure discussion attached to the question in question, but this is simply not on.

I propose:

  • The question be reopened until the discussion is complete
  • Whenever closure discussions happen in future on meta there should be a link to them on the question
$\endgroup$
8
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The meta thread has 4 comments + OP for closing the question (more than the number of upvotes on your answer), and your answer was (well, at least looked to me) more like "maybe not closing it would be OK too" than the firm vote against closing. As for arguments against offtopic questions, they are quite well-known, I think. But if you like to discuss more, maybe we should... $\endgroup$ – Grigory M Aug 10 '10 at 16:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh no ^^^ and this is being upvoted as well ^^^ the point is: we were discussing closure and the tide seemed to be turning against closing. Just closing anyway, if done with knowledge of the meta thread, is clearly not on. $\endgroup$ – Tom Boardman Aug 10 '10 at 16:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, I can speak only for myself: I casted a vote to close about 8 (?) hours before your answer, when all comments where in favor of closing. Anyway, I don't see "the tide turning against closing" even now. $\endgroup$ – Grigory M Aug 10 '10 at 17:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Without seeing the specifics of this case: People using the main site are free to go about their normal work of voting to close etc. without even looking at the meta site, and I see nothing wrong if a question gets closed in the normal process. Are you suggesting that whenever a question looks bad, someone can open a meta thread, and everyone using the parent site needs to stop behaving as usual and do nothing until the meta question is resolved? $\endgroup$ – ShreevatsaR Aug 10 '10 at 17:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ShreevatsaR Well, if it's not clear [from rules etc], whether the question should be closed — yes, it should be discussed on meta first. Why, it's what meta for, isn't it? $\endgroup$ – Grigory M Aug 10 '10 at 17:27
  • $\begingroup$ (But what happened in this case is quite opposite: there were people in comments [to the original question] who wanted to close an offtopic question, but there weren't enough high-rep users, so a meta thread to find close-vote-casters was created.) $\endgroup$ – Grigory M Aug 10 '10 at 17:31
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Grigory M: I'm just pointing out that not everyone is obliged to read everything on meta. I've been using Stack Overflow for years, and only rarely visit the meta site. People who don't see the meta question (or ignored it) are free to continue voting as normal; unless attention is called on the original question to the meta thread (which had not happened in this case when the question was closed). $\endgroup$ – ShreevatsaR Aug 10 '10 at 17:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @ShreevatsaR oh, now I understand (and agree) — and hence OP's second proposition (which sounds reasonable) $\endgroup$ – Grigory M Aug 10 '10 at 17:58
2
$\begingroup$

People are not necessarily obligated to follow what other people say in meta or wait for the discussion to finish. It is often a good idea, but, at least on SO, there is no obligation. I hope they would take discussions on meta into account, but they may choose to exercise their close (or reopen) votes at any time.

Posting on meta is still worthwhile, as if you make a good case, you have a good chance of getting your question reopened.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .