Return to Answer

Since you brought it up, It would be good to revisit the topic of expanding gold badge powers as its own topic, but since you brought it up as a comparative example applied to this proposed feature, here are my thoughts:

Likewise, and far more concerning, are the close reasons, that are inherently temporal in their application: the "needs detail", "lacks MRE", and "needs focus" reasons (or as I like to call them, "Unclear", "No MCVE", and "Too Broad" reasons... seriously, could we get those old naming/descriptions back?). These close reasons can easily be invalidated (which is great!) by an OP who diligently edits their question to narrow the scope of it, add missing detail, or include a necessary error message/stack trace.

It would be good to revisit the topic of expanding gold badge powers as its own topic, but since you brought it up as a comparative example applied to this proposed feature, here are my thoughts:

Likewise, and far more important here, are the close reasons that are inherently temporal in their application: the "needs detail", "lacks MRE", and "needs focus" reasons (or as I like to call them, "Unclear", "No MCVE", and "Too Broad" reasons... seriously, could we get those old naming/descriptions back?). These close reasons can easily be invalidated (which is great!) by an OP who diligently edits their question to narrow the scope of it, add missing detail, or include a necessary error message/stack trace.

While I agree that preventing robo-reviewers from having additional, more powerful abilities is ideal, I think we need more data on this. In the review queues, I tend to spend most of my time narrowed by close reason or by topic. Some close reasons apply to questions that are permanently or inherently off-topic... a request for recommendations on which language to use for a project is never going to be on-topic. While it's not likely to happen, it does sometimes occur to OPs of such questions to delete the entire question and rewrite it as a new, totally unrelated one... which might well be on-topic.

While I agree that preventing robo-reviewers from having additional, more powerful abilities is ideal, I think we need more data (on users' vote reasons and how they tend to spread their votes across reasons, especially in the review queues) before we can discuss this to a significantly deeper level. In the review queues, I tend to spend most of my time narrowed by close reason or by topic. Some close reasons apply to questions that are permanently or inherently off-topic... a request for recommendations on which language to use for a project is never going to be on-topic. While it's not likely to happen, it does sometimes occur to OPs of such questions to delete the entire question and rewrite it as a new, totally unrelated one... which might well be on-topic.

While I agree that preventing robo-reviewers from having additional, more powerful abilities should be prevented, I think we need more data on this. In the review queues, I tend to spend most of my time narrowed by close reason or by topic. Some close reasons apply to questions that are permanently or inherently off-topic... a request for recommendations on which language to use for a project is never going to be on-topic. While it's not likely to happen, it does sometimes occur to OPs of such questions to delete the entire question and rewrite it as a new, totally unrelated one... which might well be on-topic.

While I agree that preventing robo-reviewers from having additional, more powerful abilities is ideal, I think we need more data on this. In the review queues, I tend to spend most of my time narrowed by close reason or by topic. Some close reasons apply to questions that are permanently or inherently off-topic... a request for recommendations on which language to use for a project is never going to be on-topic. While it's not likely to happen, it does sometimes occur to OPs of such questions to delete the entire question and rewrite it as a new, totally unrelated one... which might well be on-topic.