I saw a question on meta about a long standing site bug. It is a bit hard to discern, so some people thought it was unreproducible and closed it as such. However several others have verified that this is happening to them (including me). Then someone pointed out that it's an old bug still unresolved. They linked to a previous posting detailing the exact issue.

Is it still appropriate for the question to be reopened so it can be marked as a duplicate?

I understand that reopening to close a question with a more correct reason is discouraged and not productive. However duplicates have value to the site in allowing more people to find the correct answer.

In this case is it worth reopening to reclose the question or is it still discouraged?


I think it is very useful to reopen and close as duplicate. Duplicates have a purpose: redirect to another post that has the/an answer.

If that other question was closed as non-reproducible, someone who finds it through search might think it isn't solved yet, while the duplicate explains it is.

The problem here might be the number of people needed to reopen it. If you don't have close/reopen super powers, you have to rely on others to reopen it. That process might not be as productive as commenting might be. If that process takes days, are you still there to close it as a duplicate? If so, you might want to give it a try.

|improve this answer|||||

You must log in to answer this question.

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