Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 153 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

Currently, SE allows one to change an up- or down-vote once the question has been edited. This seems sensible, as it allows one to to ensure that the vote reflects the current content. However, the vote-to-close and vote-to-open buttons do not allow one to change their vote if/when the content of the question changes. This seems inconsistent.

Allowing votes to reflect the current content would be more consistent with the voting pattern allowed elsewhere. It might also provide incentive for people to improve closed questions, or questions at-risk for closing due to the number of close votes.

Shouldn't a change in question content allow users to revise their close/open votes?

share|improve this question
So, if 5 users decide a question should be closed and then one of them changes his mind, because the question was edited, should the question be reopened? – svick Jul 22 '12 at 15:51
Once a Q has been closed, people can cast reopen votes. I don't see how your proposal would change anything for already-closed Qs. – Mat Jul 22 '12 at 15:53
@svick The point is that the five people who voted to close shouldn't be precluded from voting to re-close if the question is re-opened with new content. Or vice-versa, if you like. – CodeGnome Jul 22 '12 at 15:54
allowing repeated close/open voting would likely create a royal road for abuse. Say if I suddenly get to hate you, I would permanently revise (edit your content) and re-vote to close your questions. Now, imagine five 3K+ users getting mad at you like this... – gnat Jul 22 '12 at 15:57
@gnat I think that's a straw-man argument. You couldn't recast votes unless the content had changed. – CodeGnome Jul 22 '12 at 15:58
@CodeGnome changing content is part of the "strategy" I just described: "permanently revise and re-vote": revise meaning edit content – gnat Jul 22 '12 at 16:00
@gnat This is an Appeal to Fear, and is a logical fallacy that has nothing to do with the merit of the proposition. Any system can be gamed. Revisions are tracked; if someone is gaming the system by making minor edits or defacing posts, then it should be brought up on meta or flagged for moderator review--just the way the system works now, in that regard. – CodeGnome Jul 22 '12 at 16:13
It's not a logical fallacy, it would absolutely happen, and wouldn't even be against the rules as long as the edits are real. Yes, "any system can be gamed", but that doesn't mean we should open new ways to game it even harder – Michael Mrozek Jul 22 '12 at 16:41
On a related question Why is it possible to vote for deletion/undeletion more than once we learn that the vote-once-rule was added to open/close-votes for some reason (the exact details lost in history). – Bo Persson Jul 22 '12 at 17:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .