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

Idea one billion on how to reduce the close vote queue:


Often when I see a question with downvotes I may visit it to see "what’s up" even if I'm not interested in the specific topic in order to offer advice on improving the question or voting to close as appropriate. I find this less exhausting than reviewing from the queue as it has more of a current feel.

However not all questions that need to be closed attract downvotes (primarily duplicates, but others as well on a less frequent basis), these questions do not attract the attention from 3K+ users that they need.


Add details on the front page/tag page as to how many close votes a question has (viewable by 3k+ users only) allowing the attention of 3k+ users who may not usually be involved with the review queue to be drawn.


It has been stated that the hope is to increase the number of people reviewing close votes rather than increase the number of reviews per person. This may draw in review attention from other 3K+ users increasing the number of people involved in review actions rather than leaving the burden on a small number of committed users.

enter image description here

Possible "leave open" button addition to the question

As Shog9♦ fairly says attracting only more close attention without attracting more "leave open" attention could lead to easier closure. As a balance to this the "leave open" button from close-vote-review could make an appearance on the question itself. This button would behave the same as the one from the queue: triggering earlier close vote aging, potentially kicking from the queue and once the question is kicked from the close-vote-queue the [n close vote] notice being removed from the question.

share|improve this question
Nice idea (+1), would it also be worthwhile for the reason for closing to be stated? – user234239 Nov 8 '13 at 13:41
@UV-D Could be nice, although the reasons could be a bit long – Richard Tingle Nov 8 '13 at 13:42
True, perhaps a code or a shortened summary of the reason? – user234239 Nov 8 '13 at 13:43
Nice idea. But I think adding the reason would be too much visual clutter. – Duncan Nov 8 '13 at 14:44
+1, This seems easier to implement than many other queue-reducing brainstorms, and effective too. – Geobits Nov 8 '13 at 15:34
And it would also tie nicely into Can we be a bit quicker to close (downvote) questions? – LittleBobbyTables Nov 8 '13 at 15:46
I'd prefer [25% chance this is crap] – Won't Nov 8 '13 at 17:25
Regarding "leave open button in the question itself", it was already suggested and rejected. :/ – Shadow Wizard Nov 24 '13 at 14:23
the problem has been (at last) acknowledged and addresed by SE team: Enough fuzzying: let's let everything into the close queue and age out questions that don't reach a threshold – gnat Apr 29 '14 at 22:05

This seems somewhat wrong-headed; folks with this privilege level already see the number of close votes when they're viewing the question, so this really only matters for folks who wouldn't otherwise be looking at questions.

Getting more of the folks interested in certain topics involved in moderating those topics is a great idea. Getting folks with no interest to view questions just to pile on the close votes is likely to just get more stuff closed with less regard to whether or not it needs it. There's no opportunity to vote not to close, so this really only encourages pile-on voting.

It's also just noise for the 3K+ folks who're just looking for a relevant question title.

Regarding your edit: you're going even further in the direction of, "let's get more people to review by rubbing everyone's faces in it, all the time, until they give up and click something." That's really not cool. Try to keep some perspective here: this is not such a big problem that fixing it requires getting in the way of everyone trying to use these sites for their intended purpose.

share|improve this answer
Would the same logic not apply to the queue itself; attract moderation attention to questions you might not necessarily wish to read. If anything its better than the queue because at least it's usually "in the area" of things you're interested in (unlike the unfiltered queue). The imbalance between close and leave open is a fair comment however and I’ve attempted to address that in an edit to the proposal. – Richard Tingle Nov 24 '13 at 12:39
Difference between taking someone who has gone out of their way to help moderate and asking them if something should be closed... and throwing up a flag that screams "come close this" to everyone passing by. We don't show flags on posts anymore because doing so had such a negative effect on people's behavior, but there's still a flag queue for those who care to look for it. – Shog9 Nov 24 '13 at 16:50

You must log in to answer this question.

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