10

I am not a user with close/reopen votes privileges on Travel Stack Exchange, therefore I can't see the names of the close voters in this question:

However, they are visible when going to the revision history:

or the timeline of the post:

This also happens when I am not logged in: I cannot see the banner (and so if the question has been closed), but from the revision history/timeline of the post I can get that information.

Shouldn't names of close-voters be completely hidden from people without close/reopen privileges (even if the revision history is a little hard to find)?

3
  • 1
    To me it looks like they removed the names only to remove some unimportant information from the blue box, to keep it simple and "noise free". So it is not bad that you still get the name on the history and timeline, which are designed to get additional information.
    – Tom
    Dec 13 '19 at 15:04
  • I noticed this too and mentioned it here, which means that the devs are probably aware that this is the case. Meanwhile, the close reason when the question is off topic is nowhere to be found.
    – Laurel
    Dec 13 '19 at 15:10
  • I find this information useful - as one who frequently indirectly participates in the closure process by flagging posts. Dec 13 '19 at 15:13
24

The goal here isn't to make closing a secret process of some sort. It's often important to know what all has happened to a post, and why - so the revision history and timeline seek to provide this.

Removing the names (and other details) from the default question view aims to preserve the bare minimum amount of information needed (the question cannot be answered) while leaving the full context for the places where it can be found (timeline and revision history).

The hope here is that this moves us away from blaming and shaming. Consider: If I see a closed question, all I know is that it was closed and perhaps that it was edited. Maybe if I'm careful, I'll note that it was edited after it was closed... But without clicking through to the revision history, I won't know if the edit was substantial, if the close voters acted in good faith based on the nature of the post at the time and then later it was fixed. This has led to a lot of fairly nasty interactions in the past, with folks blaming voters for closing what appears to be a perfectly reasonable question!

The same logic applies to guidance for the asker themselves: the old banners were full of details on the nature of the problem and advice to edit (even when it no longer applied, because the asker had edited). Once again, a concerned reader should be looking at the full history before drawing any conclusions here.

You must log in to answer this question.

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