1

I was reading a post made a year ago concerning reopen votes being automated.

The proposed solution looks unwieldy at best. But it did make me wonder if a simpler solution could be utilised for smaller sites.

Currently we have 5 votes to close, and 5 to reopen. Is it possible, or could it be possible for smaller sites to tweak those numbers individually to address specific issues within the site that are of concern to the community?

5
  • 8
    I believe that Kilisi is interested in asymmetrical numbers of close/reopen votes which is not possible at this time. If it takes five to close, it takes five to reopen; three and three are the same - they're locked together... we don't have a way to allow five to close and only three to reopen.
    – Catija StaffMod
    Apr 27 at 14:19
  • 1
    Depending on what solution you'd accept, your question could be a duplicate of this. -- A different solution is to change the privilege threshold, you still need 5 (however many) people but there would be more people who qualified to be amongst the 5. -- A third solution is to expand the power of the Hammer, allowing a single, expert, and trusted user to reopen. --- You can not (currently) have two different values, but there's a workaround.
    – Rob
    Apr 27 at 15:52
  • What's with the downvotes? My grammar?
    – user988635
    Apr 28 at 4:37
  • I doubt anyone downvotes a post on Meta for grammatical issues, it would be just quicker to edit the typos. The three downvotes are from users who probably disagree with your idea/proposal. Instead of asking if reducing the number of CV is possible, you could make this into a feature request. But I would put forward a more detailed explanation as to why smaller sites would benefit, e.g. Would ELU like to start a trial of only need 3 votes to close/reopen a question?
    – Mari-Lou A
    Apr 28 at 8:31
  • @Mari-LouA that could definitely be a possibility I guess, still suspecting my grammar though.
    – user988635
    Apr 28 at 10:00

You must log in to answer this question.