Timeline for Make close votes live for a given number of views rather than given time
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 6, 2011 at 11:42 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | see the updated rules, which basically turn close/reopen votes into sliding expiration, and remove expiration altogether for questions <= 100 views. | |
| Apr 19, 2011 at 13:54 | comment | added | Ian Ringrose | Would something like “if the first close vote times out and then the question gets anther close vote then the “time to live” should be longer for the 2nd close vote” work? | |
| Apr 19, 2011 at 13:49 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | @Ian If the threshold is too high, then low traffic questions that don't need to be closed will equally preserve their close votes for a long time. This will incite people to actively seek out questions just to try and push the meter down and get those close votes out of the system, whereas in the current system an erroneous close vote can just be ignored by everyone. Which is a benefit to using a metric such as time to age away flags - it's impartial and passive. | |
| Apr 19, 2011 at 13:42 | comment | added | Ian Ringrose | "electing not to vote on a question" should not effect the result unless most people that view the quesion does the same - that way I said "multiple of the mean number of views it takes for a question to be closed", the multiple just has to be high enough that "abstain from voting" does not mean "disagree that it should be closed" | |
| Apr 19, 2011 at 13:37 | comment | added | Ian Ringrose | Would a min time and view that a close vote lived for be better? | |
| Apr 19, 2011 at 13:28 | history | answered | Grace NoteStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |