Is it a good idea to to use secure_hashing_function(mypassword.url) as my password?

The close notice there says:

marked as duplicate by Stephen Touset, Neil Smithline, WhiteWinterWolf, Iszi, Xander

And there's a note added to the question with links to the proposed duplicates.

It's great that we're now showing multiple duplicates in the case of a split vote (if I recall correctly, it used to be that only the majority vote was shown) but we still have a problem of misrepresentation here:

I did not vote that the question be closed as duplicate.

My vote was to close the question as primarily opinion-based. That means, regardless of whether the question is duplicate or not, it's just not a good fit for SE in general. I didn't even look at the duplicate questions to see if it was properly matched. However, my name is included in the "marked as duplicate by..." statement as if that's the reason I selected.

A somewhat similar case, albeit perhaps handled a little better, can also be seen here:

Admin privileges from Random regedit modification

Closure notice says (in whole):

closed as off-topic by RoraΖ, UserName, Deer Hunter, Neil Smithline, Iszi Oct 29 at 21:37

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question does not appear to be about Information security within the scope defined in the help center." – RoraΖ, UserName, Deer Hunter, Neil Smithline

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

A careful reading will show that I'm indeed not associated with the specific off-topic reason selected by the majority. (I'm listed as one who voted as "off-topic", but not listed alongside the specific reason.) That's great. But anyone not so carefully reading it could be easily led to assume such.

Additionally, the reason I did select was this:

"Questions asking us to break the security of a specific system for you are off-topic unless they demonstrate an understanding of the concepts involved and clearly identify a specific problem."

This is a much more specific close reason, which would be useful information to have for the asker in case they wanted to edit the question and request re-opening. However, as it is now, the asker does not have that information (or, at least they didn't until I mentioned it in a comment).

I can dig up numerous other examples. These are just the two most recent cases I've been involved in. Are there any plans to address this?

  • 1
    Someone please vote to close this as non-dupe. Heck, let's see the majority do it! I love irony.
    – Iszi
    Nov 4, 2015 at 20:16
  • Hm. @Shog9's comment to the first dupe proposal says off-topic reasons are supposed to be split, but my second example seems to demonstrate this is not happening. Am I missing something?
    – Iszi
    Nov 4, 2015 at 20:33
  • I've personally observed 3/2 off-topic splits, although they're rare and I can't dig up an example at the moment. 4/1 splits don't appear to do that, though. Nov 4, 2015 at 21:06
  • Example of 3/2 split in action. Nov 11, 2015 at 18:44


Browse other questions tagged .