At present, any votes that are to close have priority. Normally thing would be that if someone wants the thread closed that a single vote should be registered. Then if someone wants to keep the thread open that that vote should be annulled. At present, close votes are preferences until the thread is closed. But by then the thread loses momentum and is is basically cast aside.

Logic would say that if someone choices to close and some chooses to keep open that the count should be zero.

Why the biased system towards closing threads, is that the policy of stack? Why can't a vote to keep the thread open negate the close vote, before the thread is actually closed?

Simple really, 3 votes to close, 3 votes to keep open. This should mean zero on the close votes .

  • 1
    I would say that is because close votes are given to users who have experience on site and thus usually know what they are doing. But there are bound to be human errors and there is a possibility that an edit might improve the post, therefore "reopening" votes are also available for a closed post. – NSNoob Jul 2 '16 at 12:28
  • 2
    Votes, in principle, are not for negating someone else's opinion. If 5 high-rep people agree that the post needs to be closed, there must be something there. They have their right to act on their conscience. Just like those who differ with them have their right to vote to reopen the post – NSNoob Jul 2 '16 at 12:30
  • @Aegon, so why can't a "remain open" vote negate that vote? – KyloRen Jul 2 '16 at 12:30
  • Nevertheless, if this is a new system of closing that you are proposing, you should explain your proposal and tag it with feature-request tag – NSNoob Jul 2 '16 at 12:31
  • We do have "Leave open" option available to Close Vote Reviewers. See this article to see how it works. – NSNoob Jul 2 '16 at 12:33
  • @Aegon, but it does not negate closed votes. And what is feature -request? – KyloRen Jul 2 '16 at 12:34
  • Oh, @Rand, is the OP talking about /review? – M.A.R. Jul 2 '16 at 12:39
  • 1
    @KyloRen if you want to explain why it's not a duplicate, do so. Simply calling out the close voters will not achieve that though. – Robert Longson Jul 2 '16 at 13:19
  • 1
    @KyloRen - Using vulgar language is never civil. If you believe using that kind of language is appropriate then Stack Exchange isn't the community for you. I have never see a question, that receives 5 close, in the hot question list. Even if a question is in the list, it can be placed back in the list, once it is hot again. – Ramhound Jul 2 '16 at 13:27
  • 1
    @KyloRen "one close vote, one vote remain open, this should return the close vote back to zero. At present it does not." - why?? "a closed thread loses all its momentum and is religated to the end of the line, effectively killing it" - what on earth does this mean? It's easy to get a wrongly closed question reopened. "once it is closed it is removed from the hot topics.That is huge" - you're placing WAY too much importance on Hot Network Questions. – Rand al'Thor Jul 2 '16 at 13:32
  • 1
    @KyloRen Also, FFS, your question hasn't even been closed! You're getting incredibly worked up, ranting all over the place, and wasting people's time just because of a few unwarranted close votes. Can't you just get over it? – Rand al'Thor Jul 2 '16 at 13:34
  • 1
    @KyloRen Oh and "that was more civil that I have recived and the person involved did not use one swear word" - what person do you think has treated you uncivilly? – Rand al'Thor Jul 2 '16 at 13:40
  • 1
    @KyloRen: Unless you think sensibly, stop ranting here. – user276738 Jul 2 '16 at 13:41
  • 1
    @Kylo you're assuming people would vote to "leave open". That is not the case in most careful reviews. You should demonstrate, with evidence, that the current system is hurting valid contributions. As long as you're not, repeating "this is why I hate SE" with a snarky attitude isn't going to help. – M.A.R. Jul 2 '16 at 15:57
  • 2
    @KyloRen - I don't ask programming questions because, if I don't know something, I research the topic until I understand it well enough that I don't actually need to ask a question. – Ramhound Jul 3 '16 at 6:03

That is because Close Votes have an expiration date. This is how a close vote expires:

Close votes (and probably reopen votes) only expire after all of these conditions are met:

  1. 4 days have passed since the last close vote.
  2. The question has more than 100 views.

When someone nominates your question for closing, It appears in Close Vote review queue.

If three people select "Leave Open", the question is removed from the review queue and aging process starts for the question.

When it meets the criteria of expiration, the close votes expire. Which is why we do not need to negate the Close votes.

Also see: What happens with button "Leave Open"?. Another relevant post is the "Close Vote Expires too soon for low traffic tags"

Also, a consensus of five different user means there is possibly something fundamentally wrong with your post. Ask for the reasons, see the closing reason, edit it to comply with the improvement suggestions and someone will definitely nominate it for reopening which will get your question to Reopen voting queue. If it is good enough, it will get reopened.

Also see: Shog's answer on a similar request to counter the Close vote with open votes

  • You are not getting the point. The damage is done after a question is closed. Should the process not be delt with before the question is closed? Ie, one vote to close and one vote to keep open, therefor the thread should have 0 close votes. – KyloRen Jul 2 '16 at 12:42
  • @KyloRen There has already been that feature request. See Shog's answer here – NSNoob Jul 2 '16 at 12:45
  • 14
    @KyloRen So a single Leave Open voter can remove a bad question from the Close Votes review queue? That sounds bad. That would mean, in theory, someone could ask a terrible off-topic question and remove it from the attention of possible close-voters by voting themselves to leave it open as soon as someone votes to close. – Rand al'Thor Jul 2 '16 at 12:45
  • just curious: do you see your own questions in the review queue? that seems like a conflict of interest. – KutuluMike Apr 12 '17 at 13:19
  • @KutuluMike No naturally you don't. There are eligibility rules defined which determine which Reviews are you eligible to do. And if it's your post, you aren't eligible. Shog briefly mentioned the existence of the rules but did not go into details. – NSNoob Apr 12 '17 at 13:22
  • So the loophole @randal'thor was worried about can't happen directly.. it would take at least two user to "game" the review system like that? – KutuluMike Apr 12 '17 at 13:24
  • @KutuluMike Rand's argument is about the proposed mechanism by KyloRen, that if one guy says keep it open, second guy says close it, the net votes should be zero (Although Kylo never said it should remove the post from queue as well), Rand then presented his argument based on the premise that 0 net votes at any instance of time should remove the post from review queue. As of now, it takes three "Leave open" votes to remove a post from the queue, since you can't vote yourself, you need three other users with review privileges to do that regardless to the proposed net-vote system. – NSNoob Apr 12 '17 at 13:30
  • You can however vote to reopen on your own closed posts, which will push it in the review queue again. So yes TLDR you are correct, The hypothetical loophole suggested by Rand is not really possible even if the mechanism proposed by KyloRen was implemented – NSNoob Apr 12 '17 at 13:32
  • right, that's what I meant even though it's not what I said :) – KutuluMike Apr 12 '17 at 13:34

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