-6

I have tried to find a duplicate of the question but not able to. so please excuse me if there is a duplicate of this.

This is my suggestion that we should reduce reputation cap require to review "Close Votes" from 3k to 2k.

This is primarily because there are 97k close votes are there which is quiet a huge number(and situation will get worst).

If we reduce reputation cap require to review "Close Votes" then it might be possible more user will be able to review it and which will eventually reduce the number of "Close Votes".

Improve this question
21
  • Or they just answer less questions and walk away.
    – juergen d
    Commented Nov 12, 2013 at 8:14
  • 1
    @juergend .. what do you mean ??
    – Dhaval
    Commented Nov 12, 2013 at 8:15
  • 1
    @juergend, pretty sure the request is to reduce the privilege for voting to close from 3k reputation to 2k reputation. This is confusing because of the term 'rep cap', but nowhere does this seem to be talking about the 200/day reputation cap.
    – jmac
    Commented Nov 12, 2013 at 8:17
  • 3
    @juergend - By rep cap he mean close vote privilege.
    – Himanshu
    Commented Nov 12, 2013 at 8:18
  • 2
    @hims056 thx for making it more clearer .. ok yea i wana say that to review a close vote required reputation should be reduced as there are 97k close vote review are there on SO
    – Dhaval
    Commented Nov 12, 2013 at 8:21
  • 8
    I am 7K+ on stackoverflow and spend here all day but still sometimes have doubts I should be reviewing. It takes lots of SO experience ( not rep points but hanging around and specially reading meta ) to develop a good judgement skills ). There are people capable of achieving 2K in a week or two ( even a month ) but that would not be enough time spent on SO to give someone moderation privileges like voting to close. SO is about quality and not quantity.
    – user221081
    Commented Nov 12, 2013 at 8:21
  • 1
    @Dhaval the vote-to-close review queue size is quite an issue for a long time. It seems like there are many suggestions as to how to handle this (search for [review] [vote-to-close] [stackoverflow] in meta). Yet this issue seems to interest no moderator or dev. Funny? I don't think so.
    – Shai
    Commented Nov 12, 2013 at 8:48
  • 1
    Related: Allow 1k users to review close votes, but count them only as 0.25 actual close votes
    – Himanshu
    Commented Nov 12, 2013 at 9:01
  • 2
    Maybe not allow close votes at 2k, but allow reviewing the questions that have at least one close vote. So the user won't be able to cast first close vote, but can review the existing ones.
    – Cjxcz Odjcayrwl
    Commented Nov 12, 2013 at 9:03
  • 1
    @gnat - are you following up on this close vote queue size issue? have you heard anything from mod/dev actually doing something about it???
    – Shai
    Commented Nov 12, 2013 at 9:06
  • 2
    @Shai I am following this issue and so far, I have seen no signs of progress in dealing with it
    – gnat
    Commented Nov 12, 2013 at 9:08
  • 1
    Possible duplicate: Close votes policy review. See suggestion #11
    – Himanshu
    Commented Nov 12, 2013 at 9:14
  • 1
    why there are so many downvotes ?? this is a suggestion only ..
    – Dhaval
    Commented Nov 12, 2013 at 9:49
  • 2
    On Meta, downvotes are also used to express disagreement. So a number of people disagree with the proposal.
    – S.L. Barth is on codidact.com
    Commented Nov 12, 2013 at 9:53
  • 1
    @Dhaval meta reputation is not like SO reputation - so don't sweat over it. You proposed a nice idea that sparked a lifely debate - that's a good thing!
    – Shai
    Commented Nov 13, 2013 at 11:17

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
8

I think it could be a way to reduce the close vote queue size.
But if users with less reputation can review that, the quality could decrease.

These are two ways to handle this problem and each with its advantages and disadvantages.

My personal opinion is, leave the required reputation at 3k. Better processed slower but with quality. Quality is more important then quantity.

Improve this answer
3

The reputation required to review close votes is already low enough. To review close votes correctly, you have to have enough experience. Even experiences users still make mistakes at times. With the rep cap and the current reputation required to review close vote, you need at least 15 days to review close votes.

If you make 200 rep everyday. 200 rep * 15 days = 3,000 rep. That should give you experience and give the community trust in you to review close votes.

If the reputation required is lowered, users with little experience can come to the site and within 10 days begin review close votes.

The fact is reducing the required reputation has its own advantages and disadvantages but I think the disadvantages are more.

Improve this answer
3

Re-gating the rep threshold for the close queue simultaneously reduces the credibility of the closing process. Members trust that a 3k user has been through enough to cast votes appropriately and fairly; and there are few, if any, members who can successfuly complain that a question was closed unfairly.

2k users are still getting their boots warm with having their edits applied immediately, and the community needs to see that this priv has bedded down first. As they can no longer gain rep by 2 point increments for editting, the climb to 3k is earned on the field of battle. In other words, it's a 1k of "pure" rep that only be achieved by contributing to the fundamental mission of the site. Also, the region between 2k and 10k would be unacceptably barren if the gate were changed.

But more worryingly, re-gating the close priv does not address the root issues surrounding how a close queue can reach 100k in the first instance. Is it changing demographics? A change in the topology of the user base? SO's positioning? If not, what has changed? I don't know what the underlying shifts have been and I doubt there is a glib answer.

So net-net, the proposal is well-intended, but not a solution.

Improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .