I've been a member of SO community for several months only and during that time the close questions queue size has increased significantly - by about 30k. In my opinion it is important to reduce the closed question queue size, to make sure that the community's effort is placed in valid and useful questions.

All presently used queue-shrinking functions don't seem to be working well enough.

I must admit I have not been reviewing close votes too much for some time now. The sheer amount of those votes discourages me from doing that and whenever I do do it, I feel a sense of pointlessness. What can I do against 80k questions?

I propose weighing close votes based on the reputation of the user issuing the vote. For example, like that:

Users with 3k-10k  reputation weigh 1 
Users with 10k-20k reputation weigh 2
Users with 20k+    reputation weigh 3

Not only will it effectively lower the amount of votes required to close a question, but could make users with more reputation review them more often: "since my votes matter more, I'll do some reviewing".


Another possible solution is to weigh the close votes based on the voted to close/actually got closed ratio. For example:

at least 1k cast close votes and 80% were the actual outcome: weigh 2
at least 3k cast close votes and 95% were the actual outcome: weigh 3
other:                                                        weigh 1
  • 8
    Sadly reputation does not make a good reviewer.
    – juergen d
    Commented Sep 23, 2013 at 10:25
  • 3
    @juergend what does? maybe there is another way the weight of votes can be assigned?
    – Dariusz
    Commented Sep 23, 2013 at 10:27
  • 2
    If anything, % of votes when question got closed with the reason voted (or was left open) should count. If other voters agree with somebody 90% of the time and he passed arbitrary but big number of votes, then it might mean he is more reliable reviewer. Like "Voted 1000 times and 70% agreed - weight 2, voted 5000 times and 90% agreed, weight 3". But I'm not really convinced.
    – Mołot
    Commented Sep 23, 2013 at 10:38

1 Answer 1


As juergen pointed out, someone with a high reputation doesn't always mean that they will be good at reviewing.

I think your second suggest is a better idea, looking at how accurate someone's agreement with the community is and give them more closing power based upon that, to reduce the number of people required to close a post.

One of the other things I feel the system lacks is the gamification. I reviewed 1000 posts to get my gold badge, after that the number of items I reviewed seriously dropped (actually I've only done 1 since as I was reviewing like crazy to get the gold and lost interest after). We reward good answers/good questions in the community, why not reward good reviews with reputation increases?

  • 3
    Rewarding reviews with rep was talked here already. AFAIR conclusion was: it would further encourage robo-reviews, and audits are pretty weak even now.
    – Mołot
    Commented Sep 23, 2013 at 11:23
  • @Mołot: Yeah, I guess that's a good point. But ultimately StackOverflow works and Gamification and people's desire to help others are some of the main driving factors. Reviewing doesn't fit into either of these really, so there isn't much motivation to keep going.
    – Ian
    Commented Sep 23, 2013 at 11:42
  • I just wanted to say that this particular point should be discussed in another question, one that already raised it and has some user input in it. Like this, or ask new one if nothing suits you. But that part is not directly related to OP's suggestion.
    – Mołot
    Commented Sep 23, 2013 at 11:46
  • @Mołot: Ok, will do
    – Ian
    Commented Sep 23, 2013 at 13:05

You must log in to answer this question.

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