2 added 2 characters in body
source | link

I fully support immediate close-voting if the question doesn't show due effort. Often-times the OP will never update their question again and it deserves to be closed. The "on hold" feature makes it clear to new users that this closure is not permanent and binding, should they decide to act upupon the comments and improve their question.

And perhaps I'm a little heartless, but I'm not that bothered about being overly nice. Polite, yes, but not nice. When I first used the site, I read the (then) FAQ and posted well-formed questions from day one. Vampires be damned, I say.

stake them!

I think part of the problem stems from people hoping a few comments will make the OP change their ways and they may never get round to casting the close vote that is required. But I'm not sure how we get that message out to the close voters...

I fully support immediate close-voting if the question doesn't show due effort. Often-times the OP will never update their question again and it deserves to be closed. The "on hold" feature makes it clear to new users that this closure is not permanent and binding, should they decide to act up the comments and improve their question.

And perhaps I'm a little heartless, but I'm not that bothered about being overly nice. Polite, yes, but not nice. When I first used the site, I read the (then) FAQ and posted well-formed questions from day one. Vampires be damned, I say.

stake them!

I think part of the problem stems from people hoping a few comments will make the OP change their ways and they may never get round to casting the close vote that is required. But I'm not sure how we get that message out to the close voters...

I fully support immediate close-voting if the question doesn't show due effort. Often-times the OP will never update their question again and it deserves to be closed. The "on hold" feature makes it clear to new users that this closure is not permanent and binding, should they decide to act upon the comments and improve their question.

And perhaps I'm a little heartless, but I'm not that bothered about being overly nice. Polite, yes, but not nice. When I first used the site, I read the (then) FAQ and posted well-formed questions from day one. Vampires be damned, I say.

stake them!

I think part of the problem stems from people hoping a few comments will make the OP change their ways and they may never get round to casting the close vote that is required. But I'm not sure how we get that message out to the close voters...

1
source | link

I fully support immediate close-voting if the question doesn't show due effort. Often-times the OP will never update their question again and it deserves to be closed. The "on hold" feature makes it clear to new users that this closure is not permanent and binding, should they decide to act up the comments and improve their question.

And perhaps I'm a little heartless, but I'm not that bothered about being overly nice. Polite, yes, but not nice. When I first used the site, I read the (then) FAQ and posted well-formed questions from day one. Vampires be damned, I say.

stake them!

I think part of the problem stems from people hoping a few comments will make the OP change their ways and they may never get round to casting the close vote that is required. But I'm not sure how we get that message out to the close voters...