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

This question was closed by vote as "not a real question", because the title has not been very descriptive. I improved the title, and put in a flag asking moderators to reopen the question. The question got reopened, but the flag came back "declined". I am still somewhat new to the flagging business, so I would like to find out what happened.

share|improve this question
Perhaps the question was reopened by community votes, and the flag rendered unnecessary by the time a moderator arrived? – Michael Berkowski Feb 28 '13 at 19:55
It's possible that the question also had incorrect flags against it, such as "Spam" or "Low Quality"; if a moderator has to decline one of them, they all get declined. I've had the same thing happen to me. – LittleBobbyTables Feb 28 '13 at 19:57
@meta.michael I thought this was a possibility, but then decided that moderators would certainly mark my flag helpful if the question got reopened even without their help. Isn't that what happens when, for example, moderators find a flagged question deleted by vote? – dasblinkenlight Feb 28 '13 at 19:57
They don't even have to bother marking it manually, @dasblinkenlight; when a flagged post is closed, reopened, or deleted, the flags are automatically marked "helpful". – Josh Caswell Feb 28 '13 at 20:03
Oh, you have skin in the game. – casperOne Feb 28 '13 at 20:07
@casperOne Absolutely! In fact, all of my flags to reopen have been on questions that I answered. – dasblinkenlight Feb 28 '13 at 20:09
@dasblinkenlight Are you voting to reopen them because you objectively feel they are good questions, or because you have answers on them which you feel that may be deleted because the question would be deleted? – casperOne Feb 28 '13 at 20:34
You have 122k on SO, why are you flagging at all? Vote to reopen. If the community doesn't agree deal with the fact. Then flag for moderator attention; if you really believe that the question was unjustly closed... – ben is uǝq backwards Feb 28 '13 at 22:00
@benisuǝqbackwards I was the first to vote to reopen. However, this question has had relatively low traffic before this post on meta, and it got an accepted answer, so I figured that flagging it wouldn't hurt. – dasblinkenlight Feb 28 '13 at 22:15
@das you should disclose that the accepted answer is yours. That doesn't exactly make it a good question and as mentioned before, your objectivity on this matter is highly suspect as a result. – casperOne Mar 1 '13 at 4:04
up vote 6 down vote accepted

I declined the flag. Your change was to the title, and I still felt that the question was NARQ; there was no code sample showing what was trying to be done, etc. Even as a guy, I had a little difficulty parsing it on first pass.

However, two community members came by and a mod (Will) reopened it after I rejected your flag.

share|improve this answer
The system works! – JNK Feb 28 '13 at 20:08
@JNK if by "works" you mean a crappy question with a not-too-clear problem statement and zero-effort stays open, then yes, it does. – casperOne Feb 28 '13 at 20:09
I mean a group of users saw value in something and were able to resurrect it. The system in question is the close/vote system. The alternative would have been to delete it (in which case nobody is better off). – JNK Feb 28 '13 at 20:11
@JNK Or it could have stayed closed, until the question was worked into shape. People have to get over this idea that once a question is closed that it's unsalvageable. The close notice is there to indicate that it needs to be salvaged. If we delete it then we believe there's no hope for it. – casperOne Feb 28 '13 at 20:12
@casperOne "crappy" is too subjective. This particular question is easy to misunderstand if you miss the "at runtime" portion of it. Once you see it, the question becomes 100% clear. In fact, even the last sentence is sufficient to understand what the author wants. Of the six people to attempt answering (including the deleted answers) four understood what's asked, and provided reasonable answers within minutes of each other. To me, this alone indicates that the question is not that crappy. Of course I am biased here, because I understood what is asked right away. – dasblinkenlight Feb 28 '13 at 20:27
@dasblinkenlight I obviously don't have the time to look into questions as much as you do. Fact is, it should be cleaned up/made better. Also, by your own admission, most of what you say can't be taken at face value because of the bias due to your being involved in the question (although I don't know what difference it makes whether it's open or closed to you, your answer is still there and you still have your rep). – casperOne Feb 28 '13 at 20:29
@dasblinkenlight Also, you can edit the title, but can't take the time to edit sentences such as "I have method with..." into something more comprehensible here? What's the priority here? If you are so adamant about the question being open, the least you could do is try to fix as much as you can about the question. Right now, you've typed more on this meta post about the question than you have in actually improving the question. – casperOne Feb 28 '13 at 20:31
@casperOne "but can't take the time to edit sentences such as ... 'I have method with...'" What's wrong with that sentence? The only problem that I can see is a missing article, but I don't see how adding it back would make that sentence "more comprehensible". Again, I'm biased here, because my native language has no articles; I nearly ignore them on reading. Anyway, it looks like you are almost trying to defend your decision, and you absolutely don't have to do so: I don't mind differences of opinion, and you have satisfied my curiosity by providing an answer. Thanks! – dasblinkenlight Feb 28 '13 at 21:36
@dasblinkenlight I'm not trying to defend it. I'm trying to point out that if you're going to vigorously pursue the reopening of a post, you should be doing it for the right reasons. In this case, it doesn't appear that you did. – casperOne Feb 28 '13 at 21:38
@casperOne I, on the other hand, would like to point out that there is no such thing as universally "right reasons". I mean, my reasons are perfectly "right" to me, and I don't see a problem if my definition of "right" does not match yours. In a community this large and diverse, differences of opinion are a given. – dasblinkenlight Feb 28 '13 at 22:12
@das in general, yes, on SE though there are reasons that are more right than others. – casperOne Mar 1 '13 at 1:01

You must log in to answer this question.

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