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

Sometimes questions are posted that are too vague or broad and they are simultaneously voted for closure and asked to provide more information. If the OP manages to edit the question before it gets closed (presumably to add the extra detail necessary as requested) the close vote count should be reset. This will give poorly worded questions that have been subsequently improved a fair chance at an answer without its history overtaking it.

share|improve this question
very very prone to abuse. – devinb Sep 28 '09 at 20:49
up vote 11 down vote accepted

There is no guarantee that editing the post made the post any bit better or more worthy of staying open.

If you are going to potentially reset the votes, you need to give those votes back to the users who already voted so that they can vote to close it again. But even then I am against this, because you can't expect every user who goes and votes to close to keep tabs on every item they voted for in case it gets edited.

If you post a duplicate or something that is clearly not belonging, editing it is not going to make a bit of difference, so all you are doing is canceling out the votes of those who already came by. Expecting them to come BACK to cast the same vote yet again is senseless.

share|improve this answer

I think this should be handled by adding the ability for any of us to reverse our close vote. This has already been requested.

share|improve this answer

I like the purpose behind the idea, but this idea would simply not accomplish it's purpose.

What it would effectively do is make it impossible for a contentious question to be closed. If a user (or users) are trying to keep it open, they could simply continually make little edits to it, and it would be completely unable to be closed. This would cause huge edit wars, and would completely nullify the purpose of the close vote in the first place. It would mean that only moderators have the ability to close questions.

share|improve this answer

I think that would give a too-easy getaway for people asking "bad" questions, so I'm against it.

Bottom line is I think the disadvantages of your suggestion outweigh the advantages, and I believe such a feature will be abused. It's not as if these scenarios don't currently have a solution - if the editing made the question "good", it will be reopened by the community.

share|improve this answer

If a question gets edited well enough, to the point where its gone from a question that was getting close votes, to a question that should be open, the same group of users who could have and perhaps were voting to close, can and likely will vote to reopen the question. Again, assuming the edit made the question worthy of being open. Automatically assuming an edit fixed the reasons people were voting to close, I think would be very unreliable.

share|improve this answer
I wouldn't assume that the same users will bother to reopen it. I think that closers should be able to opt in to notifications that the question has been edited, and should be able to reverse their close votes. – John Saunders Sep 28 '09 at 21:46

There would need to be some kind of way to programatically determine a proper edit. This could very easily be abused, which would quickly invalidate your presumption of adding necessary info. I think it'd be better for the OP to edit the question and request it be reopened. They should be putting more thought into formulating proper questions (IMHO).

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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