I'm convinced that we have no clear understanding of "duplicate" here. I recently had a question here closed because I asked for the "closed by" message to not credit votes to those who did not cast them. It was claimed that my request was a duplicate of another request that desired to see an exhausted list of vote-types in the "closed by" message.

The two are not the same. "Please correct this" vs "Do it this way".

This is not a preference-issue. It's a correctness issue.

"Closed as not-programming-related by Jonathan Sampson" is incorrect, when Jonathan did not vote for that reason.

Suggested-alternative, show only the names that voted for the majority option, or show no names at all.

  • 2
    You can always use comments to explain yourself or your close reasons also.
    – Troggy
    Aug 24 '09 at 1:53

You voted to close.

You didn't give the same reason for your vote as everyone else, but you did vote, and the outcome was that the post was closed. Hence, your name appeared in the list of people who wanted it closed.

I'd actually love to see Ólafur's suggestion implemented: a breakout of each voter by reason for voting.

I don't at all agree that voters who give alternate close reasons should be kept anonymous. That's just an easy out for people who still want to close a question, but don't want to stand behind their vote - if we're gonna go that way, we should just anonomize it completely.


You could've just added your answer as a suggested tweak to the duplicate question. That's why it was closed as a duplicate (and why I voted for it).

As for this, you voted to close. When I vote against the grain, I usually leave a comment explaining why I voted to close for a different reason than the rest of the crowd. I suggest you do that, too, so people can understand your rationale and hopefully make a good decision with their close vote.

  • Eric, I'm not opposed to leaving a comment explaining why I voted to close. I'm opposed to misapplying votes to voters. Apply this to any other vote in life. I did not vote for that reason, and as such my name should not be included in its list of supporters.
    – Sampson
    Aug 23 '09 at 20:11
  • 1
    I've always read it as, "Closed by these five people for the majority reason of _____." Maybe it could use some rewording, but you voted to close, nonetheless, and should be attributed to at least that action. Perhaps adding a tooltip to everybody's name showing their vote would be a good idea.
    – Eric
    Aug 23 '09 at 20:15
  • 2
    Eric, I voted to close, yes. It was closed yes. But I did not vote to close for "not-programming-related." That's my point. Rewording would solve this - just make it clear we're talking about majority vote, and non unanimous vote.
    – Sampson
    Aug 23 '09 at 20:17

Maybe the word 'mainly' could be inserted if there's more than one close reason given.

(deliberately naive code follows...)

If (NumberOfCloseReasons > 1) {
  Message = "Closed as mainly " + MainCloseReason + " by " + ListAllClosers();
} else {
  Message = "Closed as " + MainCloseReason + " by " + ListAllClosers();

(sorry i should've put that answer over here)

  • That would still kind of stick it to people who didn't side with the main reason. They'd still be seen as voting for that option. Mainly now sounds as if they all weren't sure.
    – random
    Aug 24 '09 at 1:32

I understand your issue with the close votes and showing your name next to a not chosen reason.
But we do not need a definition for duplicate. This must be defined for every question anew. And it is by the people voting to close the question (or the people providing a link to the dupe and cannot vote for close). There is no rule you can make up for this.
You still can argue against the closing with your comments, which you did. And your question was re-opened.

  • The request for a definition of duplicate came as a result of some people here not understanding the fallacy of affirming the consequent. They erroneously believe that if two positions match on a given point, they must be duplicates.
    – Sampson
    Aug 24 '09 at 11:45
  • To err is human, Jonathan. Even with a (official) definition, they will make mistakes. As I said and as you do: argue against it in the comments! Aug 24 '09 at 11:55

You must log in to answer this question.

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