-9

So here we have following question:

https://stackoverflow.com/review/reopen/3726724

Which has: - no edit visible in review - no comments indicating that there is any discussion about question value

I understand that it may have been closed for wrong reasons, but that doesn't mean it is suitable for review test!

Yes, it's detailed, yes it's long, but hey - someone voted to close it in the first place? As a reviewer I see no reason why question which was once closed should be reopened just because (and why someone made a test out of it)

Improve this question
2
  • I'd really like to hear from @minitech specifically
    – Mike Szyndel
    Jan 4, 2014 at 15:11
  • 14
    The question is open... and is not closed (never has been), which is why it's a test. If your attitude is really that no question should be reopened if someone voted to close it in the first place can you please not use the re-open queue?
    – ben is uǝq backwards
    Jan 4, 2014 at 15:20

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
11

There are 2 ways that a question can enter the reopen queue

  • It recieves a reopen vote

  • It is edited (within 7 days of closure)

None of that should matter. The question you should ask yourself is if it should be closed, everything else is just extra secondary information.

So (as far as the audit is concerned), this question was incorrectly closed, someone voted to reopen it and you attempted to dequeue it; keeping an incorrectly closed question closed.

In conclusion; do not use other peoples votes to decide how to vote yourself

Improve this answer
6
  • I understand that, however should't it be marked that question received reopen vote, and why? Current way it works seems counter-intuitive for me.
    – Mike Szyndel
    Jan 4, 2014 at 16:43
  • @MichaelSzyndel Why would it matter. It shouldn't factor into your decision
    – Richard Tingle
    Jan 4, 2014 at 16:45
  • So why are there numbers of votes shown in close votes? It counters your point
    – Mike Szyndel
    Jan 4, 2014 at 16:47
  • @MichaelSzyndel I'm enclined to agree, you shouldn't use them to inform your decision either (apart from custom reasons, it which it makes sense to use existing custom reasons where appropriate).
    – Richard Tingle
    Jan 4, 2014 at 16:49
  • 4
    @MichaelSzyndel Look at it this way. I'm a judge, I recieve an appeal from someone who has been sentenced to life in prison. I look at the evidence folder; it's empty. Do I (a) say; "there's no new evidence, appeal rejected", or (b) say; "There's no evidence, release this person"
    – Richard Tingle
    Jan 4, 2014 at 16:51
  • 1
    @Michael the very point of reviewing is to bring an unbiased, independent viewpoint on the table, unfazed by any judgements others have made or not made. Reviewing is supposed to be a corrective for a system that will occasionally fail
    – Pekka
    Jan 4, 2014 at 16:57
7

It's a test to make sure you're paying attention. Review audits are posts that are known to be either good or bad that are inserted randomly into the review queue as a check to make sure users are reviewing correctly. If you fail enough audits, your reviewing privileges will be suspended temporarily. This is designed to stop people from just clicking randomly or selecting the same option every time just to get the review badges.

Improve this answer
2
  • You missed the point.
    – Mike Szyndel
    Jan 4, 2014 at 16:38
  • 1
    @Michael how so, can you elaborate?
    – Pekka
    Jan 4, 2014 at 16:58

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