Today on SO I reviewed question for reopening. The question did not warrent reopening IMHO, but after selecting that option, I went back and realised I had been one of the original people that contributed to closing the question in the first place.

Had I realised this earlier, I probably have skipped on this reopen vote. The reopen queue is empty most of the time anyway.

I would prefer not to get in this situation, so I think SO should filter the original 'closers' out for reopen reviews. If that is undesirable, then I would like to have an easier way to notice this than to scroll down to the bottom of the question to see who originally closed this, especially since that info is not there if you look at the revisions tab of a question.

A way to improve my memory would be a nice option, but less practical.

  • 1
    Why wouldn't close voters want to review the reopening, too? Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 6:58
  • 2
    On the contrary, I think this is a good review audit to test if a person changed his/her mind after taking a look at the question a second time.
    – Antony
    Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:01
  • @Andrew: I was thinking about have some extra opinions, especially if the changes for reopening are minimal.
    – Anthon
    Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:01
  • @AndrewBarber Perhaps they do, but that is neither here nor there. The review queue should grant a full second opinion, not just a re-review.
    – user206222
    Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:02
  • It's not the close vote that is reviewed, but if the question is improved enough to warrant a reopening. If it's not, just vote to keep it closed.
    – Bo Persson
    Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:03
  • @Antony: That is also a valid, I guess I just was surprised that I saw my own name there.
    – Anthon
    Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:04
  • @telthien I don't know what you mean by a 'full opinion' as opposes to a review of the reopen. Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:06
  • @Bo, I realise I review the reopening not the close vote. But the changes to the question are often minimal and sometimes questions are just re-tried.
    – Anthon
    Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:06
  • I just realised I don't know if there are multiple reopen reviewers (like with closing) or just one, going to have to search the site for that
    – Anthon
    Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:09
  • @AndrewBarber Sorry, should have been clearer. By full review I meant to say that one should pick new people as a safety against a close in error or by misunderstanding. I concede that this situation won't happen that often, so I'm arguing only on the basis of a totally fair system. This probably isn't worth the actual time to implement.
    – user206222
    Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:09
  • @Telthien that 'full review' is what would happen with my suggestion to filter out the original 'closers' from the reopen review.
    – Anthon
    Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:14
  • @telthien You seem to be asuming previous close voters would be incapable of fairly reviewing the new content if edited, or rethink their choice if someone votes to reopen without an edit. Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:15
  • @AndrewBarber That's not quite what I mean. Through misunderstanding by more than a few people, a question could be inaccurately judged as closed. If that misunderstanding by a voter is not rectified, then they will again vote to close. The chances are small (near irrelevance) but possible.
    – user206222
    Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:20
  • @Telthien I see what you mean there. Personally, I consider such a situation as a legitimate chance to reconsider whether my close vote was correct. It's still a valid concern, of course, no matter how rare. Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 14:51

1 Answer 1


The reason you see those audits is because someone has edited the question or voted to reopen it.

In either case, your review would still be quite relevant there. Some might even argue perhaps moreso, since you have knowledge of the question's prior state.

It is especially so if the question was edited; you, as a close-voter, would have very useful experience with the question, to know if and how much it was improved.

Ultimately, though; your review should not be different because you did or did not previously act to close; you should review according to the current content. If it's still not good enough to be open, vote so.

  • Thanks, you are right about considering the current content. In case of any doubt (on my side) I should just skip.
    – Anthon
    Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:17
  • @Anthon whenever I see a reopen for something I voted to close, and no edits have happened, I skip. Well, I mean before I was a mod and did more of those ;) Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:19
  • I should have done so, but like I described in the OP I did realise that to late, because I was looking at the revisions tab of the question, to look at the edits and that view does not include the list of original 'closers'
    – Anthon
    Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:23
  • @Anthon are you sure it wasn't edited? Also, just because I skip in such things doesn't mean you need to. Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:26
  • it was edited. There was a (minimal) edit, if not there would have been no revisions tab.
    – Anthon
    Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:40
  • @Anthon Then I think it was wholly proper for you to review the reopen. Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:42
  • @anthon I am embarrassed I was spelling your name 'Anton', without the H! Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 7:44
  • No Problem with the name as long as you don't call me "Tony". I guess a moderator has more changes to edit older comments than I have.
    – Anthon
    Commented Apr 4, 2013 at 6:52
  • @Anthon Yeah; Mods have no time limit to edit them, so I hid the evidence ;) Commented Apr 4, 2013 at 7:01

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