-2

My question on SO was put on hold seemingly less than 1 hour after being first published. Less than 1 hour after that I updated to address one of two complaints (2nd was never applicable) yet am still 1 'reopen' vote short of having the Q actually re-opened. None of the 4 people who voted to put it on hold opined after my revisions. With the above as setup, a request and a comment:

  • comment: seems like there should be a way to prompt (read: nag) those voting to close a question to provide timely feedback on revisions. IMO power to prevent someone else's participation should be weighted down with responsibility for follow-up when corrective action was taken. At the very least, the down-voters should be required to explain why the revisions are insufficient (in free-verse, not just 'pick a checkbox' - that may or may not apply)

  • request: could I please get another 'reopen' vote on my question (or an applicable, lucid explanation as to why it is still not merited)?

Thanks

7
  • 3
    And, because you're touching on it: the idea of requiring downvoters to provide a comment with their downvote has come up an incredible number of times. It isn't going to happen, the reasons against it are twofold: (a) downvoting's intended to be anonymous, and (b) aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Commented Mar 26, 2014 at 1:32
  • 3
    Not all the information people need to reproduce your issue is in the question; some of the necessary information is in a JSFiddle. All the information needed to resolve your issue should be in the question itself. Commented Mar 26, 2014 at 1:39
  • @GeorgeStocker, added remaining src from JSFiddle into post - I presume that's what you meant by incomplete info. aside: I realize that this is SO's version of the 2nd amendment - a polarizing issue subject to no reasonable discourse - but IMO working/editable src is more useful to the reader than static reprint. Guessing rule pre-dated popularity of jsfiddle, plunkr, etc.
    – Nikita
    Commented Mar 26, 2014 at 1:55
  • 1
    There is plenty of reasonable discourse on the subject (assuming you mean the downvoting). meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=Encourage+explain+downvotes
    – Pekka
    Commented Mar 26, 2014 at 1:59
  • @Pëkka - i meant requirement to post all code in question (as opposed to linking to code elsewhere)
    – Nikita
    Commented Mar 26, 2014 at 2:07
  • 3
    Ah, ok. That is even easier to justify, though, IMO - it's for preventing link rot that would make the question useless for future generations. There may be irrational views in the SO community but this is hardly one of them
    – Pekka
    Commented Mar 26, 2014 at 2:30
  • @Nikita No, it's not a polarizing subject. Quite simply, JSFiddle and other sites go down or their content changes. If a user visits your question, they should not have to visit anywhere else to get the complete information they need to to see if your question and their problem are similar. That's the basis for Stack Overflow's format. The "rule" didn't predate the popularity of those items (as there was always pastebin); it was put in place because too often, those sites go down or their content changes. If you want a JSFiddle, that's ok, but it must be supplementary and not necessary. Commented Mar 26, 2014 at 12:15

1 Answer 1

4

You need to be patient. Questions with reopen votes go to a review queue that users with enough rep (can't remember off the top of my head) can see and act on. So your question is visible to other users in a vote queue and, if it is truly appropriate to reopen it, it will happen. You just need to wait for 5 people to see it.

Sometimes it takes some time, especially towards the end of the day when a lot of users have reached their vote limits.

So just wait. If it should be reopened, it will be.

7
  • i agree about patience. that's why I commented promising an example shortly after the first negative comment. The downvoters seemingly voted to close between my promise and the time I actually added an example - about an hour. I've now waited for about 30 hours for feedback on my revisions. There has to be symmetry - if one chooses to close a question without waiting for edits, one should follow up on a similar timeline. Else, give author time to edit before voting to close.
    – Nikita
    Commented Mar 26, 2014 at 1:43
  • @Nikita This related request (meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1751/…) was declined in the past, but is also relevant, and you may find good information in the discussion there. You may also be interested in meta.stackexchange.com/questions/56849/…, which applies only to close voters, not general down voters.
    – Jason C
    Commented Mar 26, 2014 at 1:46
  • 2
    3k rep. And, the queue seems like it usually gets reviewed very quick. It doesn't have a pile of thousands of questions. So someone will see it, very very soon.
    – DeadChex
    Commented Mar 26, 2014 at 1:51
  • 1
    @Nikita voting to close is that signal that something's wrong with your question. It's a temporary designation. Improve your question to the threshold it needs to be re-opened, and it will be. Commented Mar 26, 2014 at 1:53
  • @GeorgeStocker did you by chance read the 'causes' listed in my Q? how does 'asking us to recommend or find a tool' even apply as a reason? i understand the need for 'on-hold', but in my comment above I was wishing for follow-up by those choosing to down-vote. If I cop gives you a citation but doesn't bother to show up for court, the citation is automatically dismissed most often (at least where I live ;- ). Thanks for taking time to respond.
    – Nikita
    Commented Mar 26, 2014 at 2:01
  • 3
    @Nikita StackOverflow's close/reopen system works much differently than that specific unrelated aspect of the legal system, of course.
    – Jason C
    Commented Mar 26, 2014 at 2:18
  • @Nikita Anyone can choose any reason they want to to vote to close your question. More than one person chose that reason. A few other people chose another reason. Your question was closed. I'm not sure what cops and citations have to do with it, as those are unrelated. If you want help with your problem, we need a complete minimal working example. Period. If you don't to give us that, or just don't feel like it, your question will be closed until you do. That's the bar we set for everyone because it's an important part of making Stack Overflow useful for future visitors. Commented Mar 26, 2014 at 12:18

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