In light of the recent changes to the question close-vote system, which comes along with a drive to change the attitude/thought process behind the votes, a "cancel hold vote" option makes a lot of sense to me.

The case for and against it has been made in the past (Can we have the ability to retract a close vote before it closes?), and apparently the conclusion was "this is not a bad idea". However, this discussion took place several years ago and the intent to implement seems to have fallen by the wayside, plus this discussion was outside the context of the recent change in language from "closed" to "on hold".

These recent changes make the cancellation of hold votes more important; the implication is that we want to emphasize to the asker that they ought to come back and edit their question to get it re-opened (that has, in fact, always been the goal). What if they do so immediately?

If I am voting to place a question "on hold", I will usually leave a comment regarding my decision and motive. Occasionally, my comment will prompt the OP to make improvements to his/her question before the 5 required votes were cast. I can and should retract my close vote if/when the OP satisfied the objections that drove me to cast the vote in the first place.

This saves reviewer time, since it is now dropped from the queue, and it reinforces to the OP that votes to hold are not a death sentence for their inquiry. That isn't to say it won't make it back on the chopping block, but if I challenge and then am mollified, I should be able to indicate that.

  • 5
    Here's hoping we can overturn the most downvoted answer in SE history – Adam Rackis Jun 26 '13 at 19:03
  • 1
    The intended workflow of the system is that, if the question was edited to no longer meet close criteria then the existing close votes would just expire in time eventually. At least, that's the theory. Also note reopening is a lot easier to get through for a fixed question than it used to be, thanks to the reopen queue. – Servy Jun 26 '13 at 19:04
  • 1
    @Servy But leaving that close vote there after it has been invalidated is just creating even more clutter in the already swamped close vote queue. Especially if the close votes don't expire because the conditions for such aren't met. If the OP fixes the question, the question's presence in the queue is noise. 50k+ close votes, how many of those aren't genuine because of immediate corrections? – Chris Jun 26 '13 at 19:07
  • 1
    If you read through the recent activity on that question you linked, you'd see that this is already planned. That status was only added a few weeks ago and they're currently in the process of implementing it. Patience, please. – animuson Jun 26 '13 at 19:08
  • 2
    It's idiotic to close this as a duplicate of that four-year-old question; the circumstances here are different. – Adam Rackis Jun 26 '13 at 19:08
  • 2
    @AdamRackis: No, it's not. This is the exact same feature request, and it's already been stated that it's going to be implemented. There's absolutely no reason for a second question. – animuson Jun 26 '13 at 19:11
  • It is true that I did not notice the status-planned tag as a recent addition. – Chris Jun 26 '13 at 19:13
  • @animuson - re-stating that I failed to notice the status-planned, but without the criticism of dear leader - just want to make a comment of me admitting I was wrong doesn't get deleted. – Adam Rackis Jun 26 '13 at 20:00

This should be implemented in parallel with letting "on hold"-voters know that a question has been edited.

  • 2
    +1 Absolutely - just don't make the notification bubble blue - I don't want to get my hopes up that I just got a new badge, only to see that a closed question was edited :) – Adam Rackis Jun 26 '13 at 19:09

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