-50

Voting to close a question on any SE site should force the voters to actually sit down and state the case why this question should be closed. No more just pushing buttons and leaving but you actually have to type out and state the case.

Then a report is set to the questioner and that will give the questoner a chance to see what is going on or to rebut.

Then the report can be attached with the rebuttals and the questioner can have a chance to send it to a jury of randomly selected users or mods excluding the intial close voters and the questioner.

Once the jury has decided the user can appeal up and for the final time once this appeal has be used the question is marked and judgment is final.

I think this a rather fair way to contest closure of questions and it allows for further clarification as to why the question was asked.

Edit:

After responding to someone, here is a more clearer way on how this might work.

Sally writes an question and its gets posted. Jannett votes to close.

Jannet on the vote to close form, writes up a reason and then points out what is the offending thing, then sends it off.

Sally in her inbox gets the vote form and sees what needs to be done for the question.

Sally either rebutt the vote directly, give some reasoning or explain why she think this wrong.

Or Sally can then change the question to fit the objection and submit the form back.

Jannet has her vote back and click an option to return the close vote or she can option to dispose of the vote effectively removing the vote from the question.

If Jannet not happy with the changes she sends the vote back.

This creates a means of making sure that the people who have vote to close holdings on their question have an opportunity to address and make sure that their is effective comunication.

  • 18
    This would make an already exhausted system simply unbearable. You're essentially adding another queue which would require more man power than is currently available. Also, what if the random users selected are not active, does the question remain in a state of limbo? Lastly, closing is NOT hostile. – Script47 Nov 20 '19 at 14:17
  • 20
    If closers are supposed to state the case for closure, perhaps askers should state the case for their question, too? Meeting the quality standards isn't an unreasonable expectation for posters to meet, is it? – fbueckert Nov 20 '19 at 14:19
  • 4
    You're confusing the network with a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You'd end up with far less closures because barely anyone would be interested in completing part of such a complex procedure. – Bart Nov 20 '19 at 14:25
  • @fbueckert it doesn't give the users full faith and credit that the FAQs are mett and upheald on good faith. – Ben Madison Nov 20 '19 at 14:32
  • 4
    FWIW, many of us like to give constructive criticism before we close or downvote, especially to new members. OTOH, many off-topic questions would not be posted if the asker actually read the help pages before posting and followed the advice given there. – PM 2Ring Nov 20 '19 at 14:39
  • 1
    @fbueckbert then make the faq part of the answer question process not just a sidebar. Then its a ownus on the mods and users. – Ben Madison Nov 20 '19 at 15:33
  • 1
    duplicate covers what you ask about, "questioner can have a chance to send it to a jury of randomly selected users or mods excluding the initial close voters and the questioner". The system works that way and reopens closed questions – gnat Nov 20 '19 at 15:37
  • 1
    Just today, we had someone on Politics.SE vote to close a question with the custom close reason of, and I quote, "the lowest note of a piano is an A, not a C". The question itself had nothing to do with pianos. The comment was deleted, but I would expect a lot more meaningless close vote reasons if this system went ahead. It's one of the reasons downvoters aren't forced to leave comments either, despite that proposal coming up every other week or so. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it provide meaningful feedback. – F1Krazy Nov 20 '19 at 15:37
  • 6
    The onus is on posters to read the things put in front of them. There's several documents that are, on first post, and at least one requires the poster to acknowledge they've read it. Granted, we can make it easier for more information to find, but at no point are new users absolved of responsibility for this actions. They want to post, they have to live with how it's received. Don't like the reception? Well, reading the stuff put in front of you is a good start. – fbueckert Nov 20 '19 at 15:41
  • 1
    Your proposal sounds,interesting, but I'm not sure if there would be sufficient demand because, obviously, it would be very expensive for the user asking for the review/appeal. Mileage may vary, but I would want at least $50, up front, to review a closure upon request by another user. Some users might be expecting to appeal to such a,panel of skilled and experienced developers at no cost. Yes, that sounds ludicrous, but that is what some users will understand from your request:( – Martin James Nov 20 '19 at 15:52
  • 1
    @fbueckert so then so if someone reads the FAQ and tries their best to follow the guidlines then they are still screwed. which then means that sites should look at their FAQs not just once a year and make sure it is clear concise. – Ben Madison Nov 20 '19 at 16:10
  • 4
    The users reading the FAQ and trying to follow the guidelines are also going to be the ones responding to feedback and updating their question based on that. They aren't going to be the ones that have much issue with quality standards. I agree we can make it easier to find the guidelines, but I strongly disagree that the onus is on anyone but the new user to attempt to follow them. – fbueckert Nov 20 '19 at 16:15
  • 1
    "I'm voting to close this question as a duplicate because I believe that these questions and their answers address your question." – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog Nov 20 '19 at 19:03
  • 5
    Well, how about you ask us about those questions? Like the answers say, you can ask on Meta about them. Nobody has to justify their votes to you; poster assertions that their posts are fine are a dime a dozen, and generally lack something. Be careful when deleting posts as well; do too much, and the question ban will not let you ask any more. – fbueckert Nov 20 '19 at 19:12
  • 1
    Of course I judge content! That's one of the primary things to do. Yes, I took the time to downvote this post. That doesn't mean I, or anyone else, is obligated to point out why. These comments are exactly why that is. Posters that haven't read the rules, or care about meeting standards aren't looking to improve; they're looking for targets to attack. Not worth my time. You don't want downvotes? Try to meet the standards. That's it. – fbueckert Nov 21 '19 at 14:07
16

This is mostly exactly what we already have, although inferior in a couple of points.

Voting to close a question on any SE site should force the voters to actually sit down and state the case why this question should be closed. No more just pushing buttons and leaving but you actually have to type out and state the case.

Close voters already "state the case why the question should be closed". They do that by picking a close reason. If they believe a question should be closed but no close reason adequately explain why, they can optionally write their own custom close reason.

True, they are not "forced to type out". But being honest, the preset reasons are much superior than what most users would write on their own. Even the new close reasons.

If we forced users to type their own, the close reasons would either be of worse quality, or copies of what we already have.

Then a report is set to the questioner and that will give the questoner [sic] a chance to see what is going on or to rebut.

Then the report can be attached with the rebuttals and the questioner can have a chance to send it to a jury of randomly selected users or mods excluding the intial close voters and the questioner.

When a question is closed, the question author can edit their question to try to rebut why the closure is not appropriate. Or, more often than not, to try to salvage their question so it's above the "closable" threshold.

Then the report can be attached with the rebuttals and the questioner can have a chance to send it to a jury of randomly selected users or mods excluding the initial close voters and the questioner.

After the first edit when a question is put on hold/closed, the question is sent to a queue. The "Reopen Queue". There, random and willing users review the question and can choose to cast a "reopen" vote, or a "leave closed" one. Enough votes of each kind either push the question out of the queue, or reopen it.


Other ways in which our current closing methodology is superior:

  • The initial close vote send the question to a "Close Votes" queue, where more random users can see the "case" for closure (what kind of close votes were casted on the question), and either cast additional close votes, or click "leave open". Enough votes of either kind, either push the question out of the queue, or close it.
  • No verdict is "final". The question can be still be voted for reopening and closure as more users see it, and more details are added to it.

Basically, I believe this proposal is a much weaker re-implementation of what we already have. Less effective, and without anything going for it that would "mitigate closer hostilities".

  • 5
    'Mitigate closer hostilities' is code for 'waste yet more curator volunteer time on nuisance appeals and pointless explanations'. No. – Martin James Nov 20 '19 at 15:57
  • Prepared options are worst, it was asking to attach your close vote with your own stated reason. You are making the call to close a question be specific. That way a questioner can directly address the person who voted to close. Having long comment sections trying to hash out what wrong with the question is highly unproductive. It is simply a slip, you voted to close down, so me the questioner is going to write back on the vote, ok here is why you might be wrong or hey i fixed it take a look. – Ben Madison Nov 20 '19 at 16:44
7

No more just pushing buttons and leaving but you actually have to type out and state the case.

Something similar is already in place. Like yivi points out close voters have to pick a reason, and sometimes that's already enough explanation. Beta sites sometimes just have generic off-topic reasons though, so it may be difficult to figure out sometimes why a question is a bad fit.

For this, each site has its own meta site. If no one tells you in comments why they closed your question and you feel the close reason doesn't fit/don't really understand how it applies to your question, you can ask about your closed questions there, and use the site meta to get the feedback and reasons for the closure of your question.

Then a report is set to the questioner and that will give the questoner a chance to see what is going on or to rebut.

If someone has stated why they voted to close, try to address that with an edit. If after that your question isn't left open/reopened, and you receive no more feedback, you can use that meta site to ask why.

A question that's on-hold will, after an edit, also automatically be placed in a queue for reopening, so if you've addressed comments or feedback you've collected on meta that way, make a clear edit summary with your rebuttal, and users will review it.

Your edits, comments on your post, and perhaps a meta post in this case are your 'rebuttal', and they are there for every random user to see that sees your post.

Once the jury has decided the user can appeal up and for the final time once this appeal has be used the question is marked and judgment is final.

If you've had comments on you question, and you've made edits, and your post still hasn't gotten through the reopen queue, meta sites are there so you can make this 'final appeal' and ask what else needs to change for your question to work.

Do note that due the nature of the Stack Exchange Network, not every question will work here. Sometimes, a question, no matter how good the reasons for asking it may be, just isn't on-topic, or too opinion based, or too broad.

  • One issue with this is that not all users have high enough reputation to post on meta. – Matt Gutting Nov 20 '19 at 15:00
  • 3
    @Matt it took some digging but... since '16, people can ask about their own questions on meta regardless of their reputation: meta.stackexchange.com/a/277727/369802 – Tinkeringbell Nov 20 '19 at 15:09
  • 1
    Thanks! Hadn't realized that. – Matt Gutting Nov 20 '19 at 15:47
  • Some sites on the network are open to discussion in the site chat about appropriateness and/or closure issues as well. – Jon Custer Nov 20 '19 at 23:55
  • @Jon Yes, good point. But unlike meta, which is open to everyone to ask about their own posts, chat requires you have earned 20 reputation points somewhere. So for some, meta is their only option. – Tinkeringbell Nov 21 '19 at 6:00

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