There is a problem with the close vote queue that it seems it won't ever go away. There are always proposals to increase the number of allowed items you can do a day, but that alone won't help, as the major problem with doing the close vote queue is, that it's really tedious, boring and depressing.

The main problem is that the action that needs to be taken to determine whether a close vote is valid or not is different for the 5 closed vote reasons. Of course you can always filter to only one type but that's not really advertised (I made around 1200 reviews before I've actually found out that you can filter, and only because of meta posts that describe the problems of the close vote queue system). This means that although doing close votes is the second easiest way to earn a gold medal (if you have 3k rep), people still not doing it enough.

My proposal is to reorganize the close vote system, that allows easier voting, more votes/day, and which (hopefully) will also increase the quality of the reviews.

Virtual queues

The main idea is to separate the current queue to 3 separate virtual queues. There would be separate queues for Duplicate, Off-Topic and one for the remainig three (for reasoning read on). Each virtual queue allows 30 reviews/day/person, the first 15 close vote in each queue is "free" (won't decrease your daily allowance of 50), and you will only get a maximum of 40 points to the real close vote queue.

Visually it would look like this (note: this is based on the old type of close votes, in the new close vote system there would only be 3 queues, but you can get the idea):

Queue design

The main ideas behind the virtual queues are:

  • Separating the close vote types will make it easier to concentrate to the reviews, but on the other hand will require reviewers (who are doing filtering currently) to actually do more/all of the close types each day.
  • 4*30 = 90 reviews/day, which is more than twice the amount of the current limit
  • Max 40 point gained limit will mean that robo-reviewers will have less reason to do the queue (well, at least after the first 40), so the close vote queue won't become the easiest gold badge source.

How should be virtual queues be populated? It's easy:

  1. Each queue gets all of the questions that have at least one flag or vote for that type
  2. If you do a question in any of the virtual queues, it will be removed for all of the other queues for you
  3. If two reviewers click on "Leave open", then the question will be removed from all of the queues for all of the users (as it works today).

Close vote interface changes

Now, increasing the avialable number of reviews/day won't solve the other issue, that doing the close votes properly is not really supported with the current interface, which needs to be adapted for each of the close vote types separately.

Globally we'd need a separate button of "Close as XXXX" for each queue, that will open the appropriate close vote box (for the unclear/too broad/opinion based queue it would open the list of these three options) As this might make it easy for robo-reviewers to actually mash this button instead of the "Leave open" one, we could use the same audit questions as are used inside the Reopen queue to filter those users out. Yes I'm aware of the fact that the reopen audit questions are sometimes flawed.)

Close vote buttons

(EDIT: here I talked about having different UI based on the different close vote virtual queues, but they were already done somewhat. I would still show at least the top voted / accepted answer to make it easier for example to determine whether the question was actually just a typo, but these additions already have their separate proposal pages)


Too many items in close vote queue, need more virtual queues and the interface should be different based on the queue you're in.

  • 8
    Is all of this really complicated stuff really necessary? As you mentioned, there are filters. That basically covers your whole post (except the free CVs).
    – Doorknob
    Commented Apr 10, 2013 at 22:32
  • 3
    No it doesn't. 1. Filters are not advertised enough. 2. Every close vote type needs to be handled differently (that's the second part of the post, which you probably didn't read then). And 3. If you filter you will only do one type of votes for a long time, and noone will then do the more harder types (like duplicates)
    – SztupY
    Commented Apr 10, 2013 at 22:37
  • 1
    1. Well surely that's easier than this proposal. Not saying that it shouldn't be done, but this seems very complicated... 2. You can handle them differently if you want to. You can click the question title to go to it. 3. Doesn't that same problem exist with this proposal?
    – Doorknob
    Commented Apr 10, 2013 at 22:39
  • 1
    Related 1: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/172931/… Commented Apr 10, 2013 at 22:42
  • 1
    Related 2: meta.stackexchange.com/q/160929/13295 Commented Apr 10, 2013 at 22:43
  • 1
    @Doorknob: 2. But that's slows down the whole process a lot. And the problem is that doing close votes is already slow to do properly, and the number of items in the queue are increasing. 3. No, because you only have 20 votes in each virtual queue. To get 40 reviews you have to do at least two separate queues, and to get even more, you have to do three or all four of them.
    – SztupY
    Commented Apr 10, 2013 at 22:45
  • @Doorknob: And we probably need to allow more than 40 reviews per day, if we want to decrease the items in the queue. Simply increasing the limit is not enough (as already stated in some of the linked questions). That's why I'm proposed the idea of virtual queues.
    – SztupY
    Commented Apr 10, 2013 at 22:46
  • 1
    One comment: I don't think we encourage comments telling people to re-ask their question on another site. If something should be migrated, and people won't vote to do so, flag it for migration. That avoids double-posts and allows for transfer of good answers. Please don't ask us to migrate bad content or items to sites you are not very familiar with, though. Commented Apr 10, 2013 at 22:50
  • 1
    @BradLarson: that's for questions which have a migration option. I'm talking about questions that don't have this and won't get migrated ever. You don't really have an option to migrate something to an arbitrary SE site, except for maybe flagging it for moderator attention, but that only increases the work for moderators.
    – SztupY
    Commented Apr 10, 2013 at 22:55
  • 1
    related (not a dupe): Strongly separate duplicates from “the rest” in close votes review queue
    – gnat
    Commented Apr 13, 2013 at 20:46
  • possible duplicate of Would raising the review limit help with the Close Votes queue?
    – Cole Tobin
    Commented Aug 3, 2013 at 21:12
  • 1
    Good idea! A bunch of smaller problems is easier to handle then one big problem.
    – BartoszKP
    Commented Jan 4, 2014 at 18:19
  • 3
    This would be a good time to use Knuth's up-arrow notation: ∞↑↑3. Commented Feb 3, 2014 at 17:22
  • the problem has been (at last) acknowledged and addresed by SE team: Enough fuzzying: let's let everything into the close queue and age out questions that don't reach a threshold
    – gnat
    Commented Apr 29, 2014 at 21:55


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .