Timeline for Was this question closed improperly? Possible improvements to the close/reopen process
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 24, 2014 at 13:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Sep 11, 2012 at 5:22 | comment | added | Awesome Poodles |
Re: Voting, flagging, posting here on meta, etc. can all get folks' attention - but if voting to re-open bumped the question into a dedicated reopen review queue, that attention might be a bit more focused. Voting has been less effective to reopen questions on low-traffic tags. Maybe that review queue will make it better? Posting here on meta is a seldom-win proposition. These kind of "reopen" questions seem to attract a large ration of undeserved downvotes. That just leaves flagging -- which seems rather inefficient.
|
|
| Sep 11, 2012 at 5:12 | comment | added | Awesome Poodles |
Re: I think forcing this would end up creating islands where nothing gets moderated at all. Hence the exception I built in. That proposed rule would only apply to tags that got sufficient traffic.
|
|
| Sep 11, 2012 at 5:08 | comment | added | Awesome Poodles | I like the "retract votes" idea. The review-queue is too obscure. I didn't mention these because they had already been proposed and were either shot down multiple times or have not proved useful (yet). Except for the heavy hitter (an unrestricted DNC vote), I wanted to propose new ideas. | |
| Sep 11, 2012 at 5:08 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | That's the problem though - every time a new vote is cast, the timer is reset on all of them. Even if you only get one vote every four days, that's enough to keep them from ever expiring. Re-opening deletes all of them at once... | |
| Sep 11, 2012 at 5:05 | comment | added | Awesome Poodles | The question got 3 up-votes before it was closed. It's not unreasonable that it would have got some DNC votes as well. The 4th guy was maybe piling on, but it took half a day to do it. It's not perfect, but perhaps the other close votes would expire before someone else blindly piled on. | |
| Sep 11, 2012 at 4:59 | history | answered | Shog9Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |