Do not give the impression that all votes are unanimously in favor of the winning close-reason. I closed for "belongs on superuser," yet SO claims I closed for a completely different reason.
Would like to see it show up only those names in the majority, quietly leaving out the names that chose other reasons.
Closed as "not ninja turtle related" by Splinter, Bebop, April O'neil, Casey Jones, Usagi Yojimbo an hour ago
Less clutter, less disinformation:
Closed as "not ninja turtle related" by Splinter, Casey Jones, Usagi Yojimbo an hour ago
You'd still show the majority vote, you'd still show those who voted for that particular reason, but you don't mislead people by saying they all threw down for the same slice of pizza.
If you wanted transparency for all close votes, but didn't want to clutter it up more with other reasons, why not just list the names as other closers, but not linked to that particular choice?
Closed as "not ninja turtle related" by Splinter, Casey Jones, Usagi Yojimbo (other reasons by Shredder, Krang) an hour ago
As a close voter, I am uncomfortable with indiscriminate attribution of close reasons shown to readers.
I would much appreciate to have current question closure notice rephrased to something that doesn't put words in voter's mouth, for example like
Post Closed by MichaelT, Eric King, Yusubov, Jimmy Hoffa, gnat,
with "primarily opinion-based" reason given by <whoever really picked that reason, no gnat here please>
Above is inspired by the approach I sometimes see implemented in off-topic closures like eg this one:
put on hold as off-topic by psr, MichaelT, FrustratedWithFormsDesigner, Eric King, MainMa
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Questions about what language, technology, or project one should take up next are off topic on Programmers, as they can only attract subjective opinions for answers. There are too many individual factors behind the question to create answers that will have lasting value. You may be able to get help in The Whiteboard, our chat room." – psr, MichaelT, Eric King, MainMa
In above example, FrustratedWithFormsDesigner is lucky that notice doesn't stuff into his mouth words he neither wrote nor voted for.
There is a whole bunch of feature requests suggesting various ways to resolve improper attribution of close reasons, but it looks like SE team doesn't give a shit
I had a thought on this matter the other day. When the SCOTUS issues decisions, there is an official decision authored by one member of the majority. Other members of the majority can join that decision, or write a "concurring" opinion.
One could image a message like:
Closed as "subjective and argumentative" by Joe. Q Random, John Doe, and John Galt with concurring opinions by A. H. Acker, and A. Non Umous.
Probably too confusing, but there it is.
Completely agree, this has always bothered me. I'd say just separate them out:
put on hold as
primarily opinion-based by user1, user2, user4
too broad by user3, user5
I don't see it reducing comprehension (to the extent people read it at all), and may well give some useful additional feedback to the OP (to the extent people read it at all).
Sometimes, the majority close reason was so silly that I've actually felt the need to add a comment disassociating myself from it (having voted to close for a different reason).
For example, this question is unclear (to me), it could be about subclassing a method (that's what it says it's about), or it could be about having a map with case-insensitive keys. I voted to close as unclear. Then someone else with sufficient rep voted to close as a duplicate of a map-with-case-insensitive keys question, and it says
marked as duplicate by T.J. Crowder, Duncan
This is just plain wrong and I would appreciate it if SO would stop saying I did something I didn't do. As Jonathan Sampson said, suppose we applied this reasoning to elections? I voted, so I must have voted for the winner. Um?!?!