Timeline for Close Queue Vote/Open Stats
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 27, 2014 at 0:25 | answer | added | Victor Zakharov | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 26, 2014 at 20:16 | comment | added | Troyen | @FrédéricHamidi Especially since when the breakdown by off-topic close reason was posted, the vast majority were "need to demonstrate a minimal understanding" which most people were using as "didn't show enough effort". If people downvoted low-effort questions instead of trying to close them, there would be significantly fewer questions in the queue, allowing the stuff that needs to be closed to actually get closed. | |
| Mar 26, 2014 at 20:12 | answer | added | Troyen | timeline score: 7 | |
| Mar 26, 2014 at 13:20 | comment | added | Frédéric Hamidi | @Tim, absolutely. My understanding is that the number 5 has been chosen as a good middle-ground, quite possibly after data analysis, but a senior member would have to chime in to confirm that. However, IMHO five votes should be retained even if there is a small number of questions with 4 votes being deemed worthy enough to remain open. | |
| Mar 26, 2014 at 13:17 | comment | added | Tim B | If on the other hand (and I think this is certainly possible, maybe even likely) in fact the number opened is tiny then reducing the threshold might make sense. After all following your argument I could say why not require 6, 7 or 8 close votes. After all there might be questions getting closed at the moment that should be left open. No number is perfect, just some are better than others. | |
| Mar 26, 2014 at 13:16 | comment | added | Tim B | @FrédéricHamidi you believe. And your belief may be right. Belief is not a replacement for solid facts though and is a poor driver of policy. If someone does know a way to extract these figures we can get those solid facts and an evidence-based decision can be made. If the figures show large numbers being opened with 4 close votes then clearly your belief has been confirmed. | |
| Mar 26, 2014 at 13:12 | comment | added | Frédéric Hamidi | @Tim, I did mean it ironically. I believe reducing the number of close votes will mechanically lead to more questions ending up closed although they should remain open. IMHO a "bad" question remaining open is better than a "good" question being closed. Primum non nocere, as they say. | |
| Mar 26, 2014 at 12:57 | comment | added | Tim B | @FrédéricHamidi that's a good question even though I think you probably meant it ironically. Potentially you could reduce it below four but the only way to know if to see the figures. Hard figures would allow a proper objective analysis of how much accuracy is gained by each extra Close Vote required. | |
| Mar 26, 2014 at 11:59 | comment | added | OGHaza | Fuzzying the number massively increased reviews for like 2 weeks, but the review rate is back to what it was, I'd be incredibly surprised if there is less than 120k (i.e the size pre-fuzzying) in the queue after we burn through this last 20k. I think reducing the number of votes required to 4 is a pretty sensible solution. | |
| Mar 26, 2014 at 11:46 | comment | added | Frédéric Hamidi | Interesting. How many questions with three close votes end up not being closed? Because then you could make do with three votes. Or maybe two. Or maybe just one. | |
| Mar 26, 2014 at 11:44 | history | asked | Tim B | CC BY-SA 3.0 |