What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 127 Stack Exchange communities.

Very similar (but not exact duplicates):
Can locking a post discourage new answers? (And a solution)
Give Diamond Moderators the Ability to Partially Lock a Post

I have a proposal for the seldom used mod-only "lock" feature: right now locking a post prevents voting on it. In all the instances I've seen a locked post so far, this behavior never seemed to be desired by the mods. I therefore propose that voting should be allowed on locked posts.

(originally two suggestions, but split apart to allow separate voting)

share|improve this question
On second thought I probably should have opened two different questions, as people seem to agree with #2 but not #1.. –  Andreas Bonini Jan 25 '10 at 21:25
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 6 down vote accepted

I'm against voting on locked posts, as such posts can't be commented on (to point out problems) or edited (to correct problems): an unpopular post so-locked would be effectively pilloried, forced to endure down-votes without any opportunity for the author to improve or remove it, while a popular post would be elevated, allowed to reap up-votes without being troubled by criticism or contradiction.

Locked should mean just that: a post temporarily locked away from the effects of the tools normally available to users. All the effects. If a moderator doesn't want that, then they shouldn't be using it.

share|improve this answer
add comment
  1. Why do you think that voting should be allowed on "locked" posts? If it were allowed, there would be very little difference from a closed post (which allows commenting and voting, but no new answers).

  2. Sure, "frozen" evokes the meaning a bit more than "locked".

share|improve this answer
For example, this question stackoverflow.com/questions/1995113/strangest-language-feature/… was locked (now unlocked) to prevent closing it, and a mod commented (now deleted): "I wanted to do it sooner but I was reluctant to do it as it prevents voting too". Ok, this is just an example, but of all the locked questions I know of (not many) I can't find a single case where preventing votes is beneficial. I of course may be wrong though.. Do you have a counter-example in mind? –  Andreas Bonini Jan 25 '10 at 21:21
@Koper: yup, to stop the voting insanity on wildly popular questions and answers, like stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/… (although this one isn't locked it, it probably should be) –  Ether Jan 25 '10 at 21:30
Well, if you see the comments a mod commented that he hasn't locked it exactly because it would prevent voting. Why do you consider it a bad thing to vote up even more popular questions? –  Andreas Bonini Jan 25 '10 at 21:33
Here's another example: stackoverflow.com/questions/770300/… That question was the subject of a bit of controversy after the author got sore over it being closed and decided to abuse tags. Locking allowed things to cool down; given the attitudes exhibited in the comments, I rather doubt voting would have been conducive to this. –  Shog9 Jan 25 '10 at 21:35
add comment

One of the primary reasons to "lock" a post is to take away the ability for people to fight over open/close voting.

Given that the post is in contention due to excessive community moderator action, removing editing and voting privileges is the intended action of locking the post.

In essence, locking says, "The community appears unable to responsibly moderate/edit in this question, therefore the official site moderators are restricting voting and editing abilities to official moderators only."

share|improve this answer
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

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