Do not give the impression that all votes are unanimously in favor of the winning close-reason. I closed for "belongs on superuser," yet SO claims I closed for a completely different reason.
Would like to see it show up only those names in the majority, quietly leaving out the names that chose other reasons.
Less clutter, less disinformation:
You'd still show the majority vote, you'd still show those who voted for that particular reason, but you don't mislead people by saying they all threw down for the same slice of pizza.
If you wanted transparency for all close votes, but didn't want to clutter it up more with other reasons, why not just list the names as other closers, but not linked to that particular choice?
As a close voter, I am uncomfortable with indiscriminate attribution of close reasons shown to readers.
I would much appreciate to have current question closure notice rephrased to something that doesn't put words in voter's mouth, for example like
Above is inspired by the approach I sometimes see implemented in off-topic closures like eg this one:
In above example, FrustratedWithFormsDesigner is lucky that notice doesn't stuff into his mouth words he neither wrote nor voted for.
There is a whole bunch of feature requests suggesting various ways to resolve improper attribution of close reasons, but it looks like SE team doesn't give a shit
I had a thought on this matter the other day. When the SCOTUS issues decisions, there is an official decision authored by one member of the majority. Other members of the majority can join that decision, or write a "concurring" opinion.
One could image a message like:
Probably too confusing, but there it is.
Completely agree, this has always bothered me. I'd say just separate them out:
I don't see it reducing comprehension (to the extent people read it at all), and may well give some useful additional feedback to the OP (to the extent people read it at all).
Sometimes, the majority close reason was so silly that I've actually felt the need to add a comment disassociating myself from it (having voted to close for a different reason).
For example, this question is unclear (to me), it could be about subclassing a method (that's what it says it's about), or it could be about having a map with case-insensitive keys. I voted to close as unclear. Then someone else with sufficient rep voted to close as a duplicate of a map-with-case-insensitive keys question, and it says
This is just plain wrong and I would appreciate it if SO would stop saying I did something I didn't do. As Jonathan Sampson said, suppose we applied this reasoning to elections? I voted, so I must have voted for the winner. Um?!?!