23

This question already has an answer here:

As noted below in the comments, this question specifically addresses how the functionality delivered to "complete" the supposed-Duplicate question is not sufficient, and requests a CHANGE to the designed functionality detailed there.

TL;DR I want to be able to quickly vote to keep good questions open WITHOUT having to go click through the review queue.
Currently, we cannot easily vote for questions to be left open when they have existing close votes on them - the only way to do this is to go to the review queue and click through until you find the question you want to vote to keep open. This discourages the use of "Leave Open" votes by making them difficult to cast.


There have been numerous good questions that are descriptive, on-topic, and informative for IT professionals that still manage to get several close votes. It is quite difficult for us to go into the review queue and slog through all the other questions and hope we don't burn through our close vote quota before we get to the question needing a helping hand.

And if we've already used up our close quota, we can't do anything at all until Midnight GMT to help a question out. (Note: it's possible that Leave Open uses up one of those votes. I don't know.)

I'm requesting that a 'Leave Open' button be provided in the Close Vote dialog that pops up on the questions page.

This will enhance our ability us to improve the quality of ServerFault questions in a positive and qualitative manner.

marked as duplicate by Shog9 Feb 6 '14 at 20:58

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

migrated from meta.serverfault.com Feb 5 '14 at 19:22

This question came from our discussion, support, and feature requests site for system and network administrators.

  • 3
    Seems sensible to me - it avoids a detour into the review queue (which may require scrolling through every question with a close vote to get to the one you want to keep open). – voretaq7 Feb 5 '14 at 19:14
  • 8
    This is not a duplicate of that request. That request was completed and is available ONLY IN THE REVIEW QUEUE, which I specifically addressed in my question. – Magellan Feb 5 '14 at 19:32
  • 2
    This is not a duplicate folks, it's a change request. If it's going to be shot down as status-declined with some supporting rationale that's fine, but the request is pretty clearly different and distinct from the existing feature as implemented (/review). – voretaq7 Feb 6 '14 at 20:45
  • Questions here are always duplicates, @voretaq7 - you just weren't looking hard enough. – Shog9 Feb 6 '14 at 20:58
  • @Shog9 At least the duplicate talks about the same topic this time. I'm not sure I agree with the rationale in the answer there (the premise is that there is something wrong with the question for it to wind up in the close queue, but the case we're hitting on SF is many perfectly fine questions getting close votes and "robo-review" just-agree-with-the-close-vote-don't-think-for-yourself pile-on votes killing it), but at least a rationale exists. – voretaq7 Feb 6 '14 at 21:19
  • 3
    And if there's an answer for everything, clearly no more discussion is needed. Why don't we just shutdown StackExchange and let the Cached Google results answer all the future needs of the Internet? – Magellan Feb 6 '14 at 21:19
  • Just a reminder, @voretaq7: you have the ability to put reviewers out of action for up to a month at a time, for whatever criteria you feel is appropriate. – Shog9 Feb 6 '14 at 21:21
  • I was kinda joking there, @Magellan - folks hunting duplicates are often kinda lazy and (as shown here) pick the top-ranking examples rather than the most specific. That said, this was a duplicate, and one I've answered at least three times so far; if the answer on the one I linked to isn't sufficient, you might want to just post your own answer there. – Shog9 Feb 6 '14 at 21:23
  • @Shog9 I understand what you're saying, but it's pointless. It will still be buried in about 75 seconds by all the SO-specific traffic. We're still 2nd-class citizens on StackExchange. – Magellan Feb 6 '14 at 21:27
  • I hear ya, @Magellan. We're still hoping to fix that - cross your fingers, knock on wood, sacrifice a unicorn to the fickle gods of Meta. – Shog9 Feb 6 '14 at 21:56
  • @Shog9 How's that "6-8 weeks" going? – Magellan Apr 3 '14 at 20:35
  • Alive and well, @Magellan - alive and well. – Shog9 Apr 3 '14 at 21:40
  • 2
    Somehow my Dev co-workers don't really appreciate it much when I write that as 6**8 weeks. – Magellan Apr 4 '14 at 0:04

Browse other questions tagged .