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.

According to Emmett's answer, an Edit action on a post immediately dequeues it from the close votes queue. But why? That doesn't seem very productive. Just because someone edits a question doesn't necessarily mean it's no longer close-worthy. It seems more prone to abuse, as a user can just make a minor edit to dequeue it. If no one notices and casts another close vote, the existing close votes silently fade away and the question remains open because it never got fully reviewed.

A specific example (not claiming he's abusing the system) is this question, where a simple addition of a space kicked the question out of the the review queue, even though it only had one previous Leave Open vote. That edit certainly doesn't improve the question to a point where it should no longer be reviewable. (Note: Not nitpicking this question, it's just the most recent example of this.)

In the end, should a single user be able to dequeue a post like that when it normally takes three (previously five) Leave Open votes to dequeue it? This makes little sense to me. If an edit really improved a question enough that it should no longer be closed, then count their Edit as a Leave Open and let the community continue reviewing it and cast their own Leave Open votes, if they agree. The system shouldn't just assume and toss the question aside.

share|improve this question
    
I suspect it's the same as with editing low quality questions. The editor is meant to make it no longer close worthy; they don't necessarily though... –  ben is uǝq backwards Jan 8 '13 at 21:18
    
@ben: Well, hopefully they do, at least sometimes. –  Robert Harvey Jan 8 '13 at 21:20
    
@animuson: There's no way for a machine to tell whether the edit made the question better. –  Robert Harvey Jan 8 '13 at 21:21
    
@benisuǝqbackwards: I think the whole idea of only needing one Looks Good vote in that queue is just flawed. –  animuson Jan 8 '13 at 21:22
    
Yes, re-reading it made it seem a little harsh @Robert some do, other's don't as with everything. But, if a machine can't tell why is it overriding humans..? –  ben is uǝq backwards Jan 8 '13 at 21:22
4  
As well, just because a user is meant to edit it to a point where it's no longer close-worthy doesn't mean anything. A user can try as hard as they can and may legitimately think they're helping the question, but in reality they may not be helping the question at all. That's why their edit should only count as a single Leave open vote. They've cast their opinion that the question, as they've edited, should not be closed. –  animuson Jan 8 '13 at 21:26
1  
At the very least I hope an additional closevote dumps the Q back into the close queue –  Ben Brocka Jan 8 '13 at 21:36
2  
note that editing bumps the post, giving it additional visibility (and additional chance to get more close votes if there are any) –  gnat Jan 8 '13 at 22:56

2 Answers 2

up vote 6 down vote accepted

In the end, should a single user be able to dequeue a post like that when it normally takes three (previously five) Leave Open votes to dequeue it?

Yes, assuming that they're actually doing something useful to it.

The intent of the close queue is to find posts that aren't closed but should be, those that fell through the cracks and aren't any attention from community moderators, and help them get closed. Posts that don't need to be closed should get out of the queue as quickly as possible - hence the lower threshold for "leave open" responses. But there's always a third possibility: that the question is problematic but can be fixed - in this scenario, neither closing nor leaving open is ideal; rather, the post should be edited to correct the problem.

Edits that don't correct the problems are - as usual - pointless. The close votes already cast don't go away, and as gnat notes, the question will get bumped by the edit, quite possibly giving it more attention than it would've had in the queue. If it gets another close vote, it'll go back into the queue with existing close votes intact - and the outstanding problems that led to them in the first place. If, even with the extra exposure, it doesn't get any more close votes... Well, maybe it didn't really need to be closed. The existing votes will age away in due time.

The system shouldn't just assume and toss the question aside.

It doesn't. At best, the edit fixes the problems and lets folks get on with other things, while at worst it does what all lazy edits do: wastes time. If you see someone wasting a lot of time on stupid edits, lead by example and fix the problems yourself, then leave a comment (editors get @-notifications) directing the editor to your example. Maybe they'll learn to see the forest for the trees.

share|improve this answer

I agree that, for trivial edits, a question should not be de-queued. However, de-queueing questions makes sense when a significant edit has been made.

It is all users' responsibility to keep the questions on SE good, clean, and to the point. If an edit has been made, there is likely no more need for close votes. It is important to note, though, that this only applies if the change is nontrivial. Nevertheless, if the question is still poor or lacking, it can be closed again with more votes.

I would agree with a higher level, or at least a minimum level, of non-triviality required to remove from the close vote queue.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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