What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 130 Stack Exchange communities.

5 might seem legit for small traffic sites, but I think for Stack Overflow it should be raised.

Recently I had a question closed and reopened (without me editing it to make it reopenable) and I had a Q closed where 2/5 votes came from people who gave answers and in comments I told them that one of them was not good because it was too general, and other one was just wrong IMAO.

So is there a reason why 5 was selected, and shouldn't people who submit an answer to a question be blacklisted from voting for closing (to prevent hurt feelings close votes (in general, I'm sure this wasn't the case in my case)).

share|improve this question
    
Look at the average number of views per question. If I had to guess, it's less than 75 per, if you exclude some of the majorly viewed ones. If you consider that half of people (best case scenario) either don't have the rep or just plain dont vote to close, then there's only a potential pool of about 30 or so. So a 17% vote seems good enough to me, don't you? –  Richard J. Ross III Jan 2 '13 at 5:58
    
it could be made dependant on views by the reputable ones... also my Q is also about giving an A and then voting for close. –  NoSenseEtAl Jan 2 '13 at 6:00
    
Answering and voting to close does sound a bit off. Does anyone know if proposals to deal with this have been made before? (Like only being able to do one or the other in a 24 hour period.) –  NickC Jan 2 '13 at 6:17
1  
Without knowing much about the topic at hand, it is clear from the comments on the question and answers that it does in fact inspire debate, arguments, and extended discussion. This is pretty much the definition of a not constructive question. –  Asad Jan 2 '13 at 6:25
    
@Asad Q is clear. The fact that ppl seem to think there are no reasons why X is good is fine, then they should say X is not good, dont listen to those ppl who say X is good, these are the reasons: .... –  NoSenseEtAl Jan 2 '13 at 6:28
    
@Asad also a lot of the extened discussion was about the fact that ppl wanted sources for claims in the Q –  NoSenseEtAl Jan 2 '13 at 6:29
    
@RichardJ.RossIII You didn't specify what you meant by majorly viewed ones but the average for all is 839 and the median view count is 226. I don't know if this challenges or reinforces your veiwpoint. here's the data.se query –  Some Helpful Commenter Jan 2 '13 at 7:22
1  
possible duplicate of Closing Etiquette: Why Do Some Answer *and* Close? –  Some Helpful Commenter Jan 2 '13 at 7:40
2  
@NickC - I'm not really sure that's such a big deal, I sometimes answer questions I know will be closed just to be helpful. Sometimes I even am one of the close voters. It's also just a vote, and if 4 other people don't agree with me, then my vote doesn't matter. If we're going to be worried that someone might earn a few extra rep points, then we're worrying about the wrong things. ;) With that said, I don't think people should use their privileges to game the system either, and if it's clear someone is doing this, that should be dealt with ad-hoc. –  jmort253 Jan 2 '13 at 8:10
1  
@jmort253 I don't think it's about the rep points, though I agree that doesn't matter much. I think that it's kind of a duality of purpose. If you can see a way to actually answer a question, then what close reason makes sense? –  NickC Jan 2 '13 at 17:52
    
LOL original Q got delted, not just closed, though it had 4 reopen votes... some ppl are revengeful here... LOL –  NoSenseEtAl Jan 3 '13 at 8:28

1 Answer 1

Stack Overflow is run by the community, using the concepts of crowdsourcing, and requiring 5 people to close a post is quite reasonable. It's also very unlikely that 5 established users are going to vote to close a post for selfish reasons.

What's more, if a post is closed accidentally, or due to misunderstandings or confusion about the topic, the post can be edited and reopened by 5 other users. If something is closed that shouldn't be, it won't stay closed for long.

The system works, and there's no reason at this time to change it.

With that said, if you're doing things that are causing people to become upset with you, like leaving rude comments on their posts, one way you can avoid this problem is by following the guideline in the FAQ:

Be nice!

Now, I'm not suggesting you've acted or behaved poorly, but another tool in our toolbox to prevent others from behaving badly is for us to not do things that provoke others. If you're nice to people, you're less likely to get serial downvoted or have an extra close voter who votes to close your post for the wrong reasons.

Hope this helps!

share|improve this answer
1  
Good guess. This somewhat charged exchange is relevant to your second point. –  Asad Jan 2 '13 at 6:21
    
@Asad it wasnt charged, I just thought A was really bad because it was like: oh that is some stupid crap that nobody would ever say, then I posted links to article (one of the authors Jon Skeet) and then discussion just got stupid... but please dont focus on this instance, in general ppl who A should not be able to vote close when their precious A gets downvoted. IMAO ofc –  NoSenseEtAl Jan 2 '13 at 6:26
3  
@NoSenseEtAl I'm not saying you were to blame: a civil discussion usually omits words like "ignoramus" or "trolling". –  Asad Jan 2 '13 at 6:29
    
@Asad like I said lets focus on n=5 and A and vote to close, this is just the instance of the problem that made me think about it... –  NoSenseEtAl Jan 2 '13 at 6:30
    
@jmort253 : "The system works, and there's no reason at this time to change it." i think should you quote some statistics, like n_reopens/n_closes and not just saying it works... I mean if "it works" was the standard nobody would never add new feature... :D Im not saying current system is bad, just IMO it can be improved. –  NoSenseEtAl Jan 2 '13 at 6:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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