Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 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

I was going to put a comment against a question that had a very high velocity of views - it was very dramatic with answers quickly given, upvotes attracted, close votes attracted and closed - all in the space of 4 minutes.

I suppose that's par for the course in the C#/Java world.

This question looked like a battlefield for high rep users, and to me it nicely represented the constant ideological difference between the SO close-happy and answer-ready factions, even among the oldies. There is even a third group present, who will sit on the fence and put the gist of what-would-be answers as comments against the question instead.

Anyway, long story short - why shouldn't we be able to see rep by hovering over the names in the close list? You can see rep against the user who posted the question and answer, and you can hover over the user in comments. Just a bit inconsistent IMHO.

share|improve this question
But think about the children! – Oded Oct 2 '12 at 21:12
Why? You already know that close voters have at least 3K rep, the minimum required to vote to close, why is it useful or even interesting to quickly see exactly how much rep they have? – Yannis Oct 2 '12 at 21:21
@Yannis For the same reason it is interesting to see rep everywhere. There is an inconsistency here, and I'm only pointing that fact out. Extending your argument to infinity, why show rep at all? – RichardTheKiwi Oct 2 '12 at 21:23
Well, you're making the feature-request, so it's on you to state what the explicit benefit would be of the rep being visible. But given the regular argument here that a close voter "does not have all that much rep" or "is not active within the relevant tags", I would personally hesitate to add it. Even if it's visible indirectly. – Bart Oct 2 '12 at 21:25
@Richardakacyberkiwi Showing rep on posts is a useful tidbit of information for reviewers. On close votes not so much, when you review a closure all you need to review is the question itself, not the close voters. – Yannis Oct 2 '12 at 21:26

I don't think this is necessarily a good idea, nor a necessary one. (I don't really buy the consistency argument either).

Let's say a question got closed by 5 users. What would the benefit be in seeing their reputation when hovering over their names? To attach some validity to their close votes? If they were able to vote to close, it's because they have that privilege and the associated minimum amount of rep. So the exact reputation doesn't matter all that much.

Furthermore, as stated by @Yannis, the focus should not be on those who voted to close. Engaging them in an argument is not going to be constructive. Even if you're attempting to constructively discuss the closure and your disagreement. And they are most likely not the people who will vote to reopen anyway. Even if the closure was somehow unjustified. The focus should be on the question and how (or if) it can be improved.

share|improve this answer
I'm not even involved in the question. All I am after is information, information, information. At my fingertips. I see a user, I want to know more, I hover, I see (expect to). – RichardTheKiwi Oct 2 '12 at 22:23
Then why the first three paragraphs to your question? If this is simply a consistency issue, they are irrelevant. In any case, my answer would not really change. I still don't think it's necessary. – Bart Oct 2 '12 at 22:27
That was just a backstory moment on why I was looking for the information in this particular instance. You can consider it unrelated. I could take it out, but the question might as well reduce to the title. – RichardTheKiwi Oct 2 '12 at 22:44

You must log in to answer this question.

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