Now that the Public Platform team is actively working on updating review queue workflows, it’s time we address the feedback and feature requests related to the question reopening experience.

How it works today

A closed question has a single opportunity to enter the Reopen votes queue and be considered for reopening. If a closed question receives any body edit, it will automatically go into the Reopen votes queue. This process does not discern the value of the edit itself. If the edit doesn’t resolve problems with the closed question, reviewers are likely to choose to keep the question closed. Once the question leaves the reopen queue, the post author and other community members have little to no option of getting the post reopened.


After reviewing the community ideas and weighing the pros and cons of some different approaches, we have landed here with some improvements to both the editing and reopen votes experiences.

1. Adding a “substantial edit” option
All users are still able to submit edits on closed questions. This new feature allows editors to determine whether they’re making a minor edit (i.e. grammar, spelling) or a significant edit. By submitting an edit for review, the editor agrees that their edit attempts to resolve the question’s close reason(s) and should be considered for reopening in the Reopen votes queue.

Standard question edit screen, with new addition, for a new edit. Between the edit summary and the "Save edits" button, there is a label "Submit for review" with a help button labeled "?". Below this is a checkbox, which has the text next to it: "This edit resolves the original close reason and the question should be considered for reopening."

Once a significant edit has been submitted, editors are still able to return to the edit screen and make further adjustments.

A close-up of the new addition, for subsequent edits after a claimed-to-be-significant edit. Appended to the "Submit for review" text is a gray-background label saying "In review". Below the checkbox, which is now checked and grayed out, is italic text: "(You may continue to save new edits while your submission is in review)"

Users who do not have enough reputation to submit an edit outright will have their significant edits go into the Suggested edits queue accompanied by a post notice.

The notice that Suggested edits reviews would be shown, with a blue background: "The editor has indicated that this is a significant edit that improves and/or resolves problems with the closed question. Approving this edit will send it to the Reopen votes queue."

2. Leave closed reasons
If a Reopen votes reviewer elects to leave a question closed, the reviewer will be presented a “Leave closed reason” modal (similar to the close reason modal) that will return feedback to the editors. For example, if a question was originally closed because it lacked details, it may still require further details even after an edit, or new issues with the question might present themselves like asking too many questions at once.

The dialog which will be shown for leaving a question closed. It is titled "Why should this question remain closed?". The radio button options are, "It asks too many questions at once", "It lacks detail and needs more information", "It is off-topic for the site and likely cannot be edited to meet requirements of the site", "It is likely to be answered by opinion rather than fact and citations.", and "This question has been answered, is not unique, doesn't differentiate itself from another question.". Then there are two buttons: "Keep closed" and "Cancel"

In addition to inbox notifications, the closed question’s post notice will also be updated.

The new post notice. At the top is "Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.". Below a horizontal line and next to a lightbulb is "Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post. Closed 3 days ago.". Then there is the new addition below: "An edit was submitted for review 14 minutes ago and failed to reopen the post: (the following is italicized) Post asks too many questions at once." Below is the standard "Improve this question" button.

3. Multiple opportunities to send question for review
We understand that it may take multiple attempts to get your question just right. If a significant edit fails to reopen a question, users will now have an opportunity to continue to rework and edit their question and have it reviewed multiple times. Reviewers will not be able to see the same question twice in the Reopen votes queue.

To make sure that the significant-edit option isn't abused, we will monitor overall completed review tasks, the significant edit attempts, and the number of closed/reopened questions.

These changes are planned to occur with the other review queues workflow updates.

Please share your feedback and questions on this post.

  • 22
    Are ♦ moderators exempt from the restriction that "Reviewers will not be able to see the same question twice in the Reopen votes queue."? – hyper-neutrino Jul 7 at 17:47
  • 8
    Is there an equivalent way to mark an edit as major or minor on posts that haven't been closed, or is that option only present for closed questions? – Zoe the 1337 Princess Jul 7 at 17:47
  • 6
    @hyper-neutrino Probably not, but I would assume a diamond mod would probably open it in a new window and just reopen it that way – Machavity Jul 7 at 17:54
  • 1
    @Zoethe1337Princess What purpose will that serve? On closed questions it is specifically for actually sending them to the reopen queue... – Tomerikoo Jul 7 at 18:03
  • 7
    @Tomerikoo If a user submits a suggested edit prior to the question being closed, but the suggested edit is approved after the question is closed, then that edit needs the information as to if it was "substantial" or not. IMO, it would be fine to have the system just assume that such an edit is not substantial enough to trigger a reopen review, but the system needs to be designed one way or another (i.e. give manual choice, or assume). – Makyen Jul 7 at 18:15
  • 1
    What happens when you click the "?" next to "Submit for review"? – bobble Jul 7 at 18:29
  • 3
    Will there be some sort of beta or test phase for this? – Tomerikoo Jul 7 at 18:56
  • 1
    @Lisa - It's not clear from your description. Does the author of the question see this checkbox? What prevents them from modifying their question, with a nonsensical justification like "this isn't a duplicate because the sky is blue", and throwing their question into the reopen queue? – Ramhound Jul 7 at 20:11
  • 7
    @Ramhound There is nothing preventing them, but their question will not get opened and they might suffer "abuse" consequences by mods. See the related answer from this page – Tomerikoo Jul 7 at 20:20
  • 2
    @zcoop98 - I can already say from experience, most of the time when a question is closed as a duplicate, the author will typically provide the "the sky is blue" or "this isn't an duplicate" justification (without any clarification or anything). Which is the reason I am asking if the author will see the checkbox or not. – Ramhound Jul 7 at 20:30
  • 2
    @gnat It is literally under the heading How it works today – Tomerikoo Jul 7 at 20:32
  • 1
    Perhaps the checkbox could be hidden until some level of editing, undisclosed to users, has been reached. A question closed for a given reason should require enough editing that a threshold of character count ought to be able to determine. The option to claim it was a substantial edit shouldn't be available until it is substantial. – Chindraba Jul 7 at 21:10
  • 3
    @bobble the (?) icon will open a popover with more information about what will occur when you submit an edit for review (send to the Reopen votes queue) along with a link to the Reopen votes help center page. – Lisa Park Staff Jul 8 at 2:21
  • 9
    Thanks for the feedback thus far. If I haven't responded already, I'm taking questions back to the team for consideration. – Lisa Park Staff Jul 8 at 3:07
  • 1
    @LisaPark Regarding the (?) pop-over - it should probably have an explanation about the difference between grammatical/formatting edits which are welcome but should have the checkbox unmarked as opposed to ones that raise the question's level and make it worth a reopen. By the way, thanks alot for you and the team for working on this long asked feature! It is much appreciated! – Tomerikoo Jul 8 at 11:55

20 Answers 20


Thank you! This seems like a really good feature and I'm very glad you're implementing it!

One thing that worries me is the "Reviewers will not be able to see the same question twice in the Reopen votes queue". I get how that makes sense for the large sites with many reviewers, however I fear it will essentially break review for smaller sites. Some sites have very, very few people with enough rep to see the review queue and even fewer who actually choose to spend their time there. On such sites, I suspect we'll have cases where the edit will languish in the queue indefinitely if we don't show it to the same reviewer.

In addition, some technical sites can have questions that are only understood by the small subset of users who are experts in the particular sub-field. In such cases, it is often only those users who can really assess whether the edit fixes the issues with the question and that means an even smaller pool of possible reviewers.

Perhaps this should be changed for smaller sites with few reviewers? Maybe by allowing users to see the same question when the number of potential reviewers is less than some threshold? Or, alternatively, could there maybe be a user option that lets people choose to be shown the same question if it's been re-edited? Or something else? I just fear this could be a problem on the smaller, niche sites.

  • 9
    instead of never showing it again, it might be better to prevent showing it again for <insert arbitrary time unit here>. Even if there's a threshold set by the potential number of reviewers, that kinda assumes all the reviewers are active, and continue staying active (and it's trivial to show this isn't the case on any site in the network). Dunno what length of time would be reasonable, though, but I imagine the main "problem" they're trying to avoid is the same reviewers re-reviewing the same question in a very short period of time – Zoe the 1337 Princess Jul 7 at 18:14
  • 7
    @Zoethe1337Princess yeah, that could work too. I guess there are many possible workarounds, I just want to have something in place for the smaller sites. – terdon Jul 7 at 18:14
  • 1
    What if following the question allows it to re-enter your review queue? Or, what if users with review privileges got some notification when browsing that a question needs reviewing? – LShaver Jul 7 at 18:16
  • 2
    Yeah; Being unable to review the same question, in order to reopen the question, will hurt smaller review communities. Doesn't seem like a real issue with larger websites, since additional attempts to be reopened, will likely happen on future visits to the community (i.e. the next day) due to the limit of reviews one user can do each day. So it's only a benefit (to the author of the question) by allowing the question to be thrown in the queue and allowing as many users as possible to see it (each time). Although I still worry non-substantial edits by the author will be a problem. – Ramhound Jul 7 at 20:16
  • 1
    This looks like it's aimed at preventing abuse from reviewers (IIRC, that's the same reason why the review items were hidden from the timeline until the review was complete - to prevent close/reopen wars). But it does favour the reopeners a bit now - all you need to do is shop around the reopen queue until all the active people who'd have voted to leave closed are excluded. – muru Jul 13 at 15:34

Assume that a user who does not have enough reputation to submit an edit outright makes a good edit that improves a question. The editor also checks the "significant edit" box, but the edit is slightly not enough to justify sending the question to the Reopen queue. Then I as a reviewer see the following post notice:

Post notice

In this case I would be torn, because I don't want to reject the good edit, but I also don't want to send the question to the Reopen queue yet. In this case I would like to have the option to uncheck the "significant edit" box and override the submitter's choice. Would this be possible?

As indicated in the comments, the two reviewers might disagree on whether or not the "significant editing" box should be checked. I'd like to provide a few ideas on how to solve this issue:

  • Require a third (decisive) review if there is no consensus. However, this might be overkill (we have too few reviewers anyway) and too complicated.
  • The last reviewer "wins", i.e. their decision whether to check the box or not is binding. But this seems a bit too nondeterministic.
  • The question will not be sent to the Reopen queue if at least one reviewer has unchecked the box. I like this option the most.

Anyway, I'm fine with any solution as long as there is a chance to override the editor's decision.

  • 5
    I totally agree with this concern but afraid it complicates things quite a bit. Just an example that comes to mind: What if you approve the edit without the checkbox but another user approves it as a substantial edit. The edit will be approved, but will the question go to the reopen queue or not? – Tomerikoo Jul 7 at 19:52
  • 1
    @Tomerikoo: Good point! This calls for a third/deciding review ;) But, as you say, that would complicate things. But maybe Lisa's team can come up with a solution for that... – honk Jul 7 at 20:16
  • That's a great idea: allow the reviewer to uncheck the box. However, a suggested edit requires 2 reviews. What happens when 1 reviewer does and 1 reviewer doesn't uncheck the box? Ask for a 3rd opinion just because of the box? – Mast Jul 12 at 13:19
  • "not quite good enough" is a bit vague to me. It sounds like you could just improve the edit if it was almost good enough for reopening. – TylerH Jul 20 at 22:04
  • 1
    @TylerH: For example, suppose the editor makes the post more readable and inserts helpful code from an OP's comment. However, the error message is still missing, which can only be supplied by the OP. – honk Jul 21 at 6:23
  • I see, yeah that would probably be a good idea to have the ability to just uncheck that box as a reviewer... the problem I see is people using it for the wrong reason (e.g. they just don't want the question reopened) even if it truly doesn't deserve it. I kinda feel like they maybe they should have just gone with 'only edits from OP send the item to the reopen queue' instead of this option. – TylerH Jul 21 at 13:50
  • @TylerH: Well, any feature can be abused somehow. But that shouldn't stop us from having new features. In general, I tend to trust reviewers who pay attention to the checkbox. And as usual, if someone misbehaves, they may be called out on Meta ;) – honk Jul 21 at 14:06

Please make sure that voting to reopen doesn't remove the question from the reopen queue.

Currently, if the editor whose edit puts the question in the reopen queue subsequently votes to reopen, then the question is either not placed in the reopen queue or removed from the reopen queue (ref 1, 2). This is, unfortunately, exactly the opposite of what is expected by users who both edit and vote to reopen.

As part of these changes, please make sure you change the logic surrounding voting to reopen and putting the question in the reopen queue so that questions are not removed from the reopen queue, or prevented from entering the reopen queue, as the result of someone voting to reopen. Such a change should be an expected consequence of the changes for which you're in this discovery process. However, I want to be sure that this issue also gets addressed at the same time as, or before, the changes you're working on are made.

  • 1
    The reasons why this takes place are addressed in my answer. In short, it's because reopen votes are represented internally as flags, and the system discounts edits from users who've flagged so that edits by users who've indicated they don't want the question reopened don't count. I've also proposed an alternate solution there - the whole point of all triggers (discount edits from all types of flags as well as delete votes) is to try and guess if the user doesn't want the question reopened - since we now ask directly, no point in guessing. – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog Jul 7 at 20:20
  • 2
    @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog Yes, removing that check wrt. edits and flags is what I considered to be the obvious solution, given the changes in the overall process being proposed. It's what I hope they were planning, or, at least, what I hope they implement. While I'm normally in favor of longer explanations, in this case, I felt it was better to keep it short and focused, allowing those interested in more detail to click on the reference links, which have the detailed explanation as to what's causing the issue and why it's that way from a historical perspective. – Makyen Jul 7 at 20:45

Picking reasons why a question should stay closed is nice! But there are more reasons for closing a question (and keeping it closed) than listed here: The community specific close reasons. Can we get fields for those community-specific reasons too, or at least an 'other' field/an option to not have to pick a reason before voting to leave closed?

Right now, I would miss being offered the community specific reasons, and I would end up voting to reopen, because there's no reason to keep this question closed in the list, and I really want to complete my review and get my score up!

If a question was closed for a community specific reason, and the edits haven't improved it to a point where it no longer falls under that community specific reason, there really should be an obvious option for those reasons (ideally one that doesn't require people to type, people may be too lazy for that) in the list.

Or, as pointed out in the comments, can we have an option like "The edit did not resolve the original close reason" when the question entered the queue through an edit, and have that checked by default? That would solve more than just community specific reasons, and could also cover all the other existing ones where the edit just didn't resolve the original issues, instead of requiring people to match the 'remain closed' reasons with the original close reason.

  • 15
    If the question was put in the Reopen Review Queue because of an edit, the listed options should include a "The edit did not resolve the original close reason" option and it should be checked by default. – 41686d6564 Jul 7 at 18:12
  • 1
    @41686d6564 Oh, that's a good one! I'll include that :) – Tinkeringbell Mod Jul 7 at 18:13

I can imagine a problem with the new "substantial edit" checkbox:

In the example, the bold text says Submit for review. I am afraid that users unfamiliar with the system, but frequent editors on the other hand, might confuse it (and don't bother to read the explanation) with actually sending the edit for review - which is what they expect to happen.

Maybe some different wording like Submit edit for question's reopen review or simply Substantial Edit.

  • 1
    I like "Substantial edit" because it mirrors Wikipedia's "minor edit" flag. There could be a question mark beside it explaining what "significant" means. – gotube Jul 10 at 18:50

I appreciate that the default for the "reopen" checkbox appears to be "off", having seen too many well-intentioned minor edits waste a question's chances for reopening.

Would the checkbox default to "on" for an edit by the original author?

  • 16
    I think it should be off even for the OP. Many (most?) edits made by original authors after their question is closed are very minor (or ranting) edits. – 41686d6564 Jul 7 at 18:14
  • 4
    @41686d6564 you're not wrong. On the other hand, new users especially are likely to miss the box and then wonder why their question is never reopened. And, on the gripping hand, the chances of an OP seeing the box and not thinking that their edit makes the question perfect are very low, so even if we don't have it on by default, those OPs who notice it are almost certain to select it. So I guess it makes sense to have it on by default for the OP since it will help those who missed it and make no difference for those who didn't miss it since they'd click it anyway. – terdon Jul 7 at 18:25
  • 3
    It will unchecked or "off" for all users, but new users who might miss the option is definitely a valid concern. This is worth addressing as part of the new user onboarding project. – Lisa Park Staff Jul 8 at 2:50

There is one major flaw with the current review logic that needs to be fixed before this can go ahead

TL;DR: The current logic disqualifies questions that have been both edited and voted to reopen by the same user from a reopen review. This behavior should be removed if your proposals are to work in the manner you've indicated.

The current review logic which adds edited questions to the reopen queue is designed to exclude edits from users who've also flagged or voted to delete the question. This is to prevent edits from users who've indicated that they don't wish to see the question reopened from adding the question to the queue.

The trouble is, since close and reopen votes are internally represented as flags in the system, this means that if the question is edited by a user to get it reopened (i.e. to resolve close reason(s) or point out why the closure was incorrect), and is also voted to reopen by the same user, the question won't qualify for a review since as far as the system knows, the edit came from a user who had also flagged the post. This behavior is explained in detail in the answer; in fact, in that specific case, the question had actually made it to review, but the task was later invalidated for this reason.

(Technically speaking, this is avoided if others also voted to reopen, but as the review logic also excludes reopen votes that were cast less than 15 minutes ago, if the votes from others come in too quickly, they won't be counted and the question will still be disqualified - that's what happened in that case. Also, on smaller sites, reopen votes may end up coming in slowly because there aren't many active reviewers.)

The second solution in that answer should be implemented - reopen votes should be excluded when considering if there are flags that should invalidate the review. The answer mentions that this would allow questions to be put through the queue twice, a violation of the current design which only allows them to go through it once, but as you say, the design will be changed to allow that. Even so, it favors that solution, as it's the simplest.

That said, since there's now going to be an explicit option to indicate that an edit makes the question reopenable, it may be time to remove these exclusion filters entirely. As I said, the whole point of them is to try and detect if an editor doesn't want a question reopened - we're now asking the editor directly, so it doesn't make sense to guess if they don't.


Make it easier to access an ongoing review item from the post itself

Could you please make it easier to access the review item from the post itself? We can directly vote to reopen from the post, but if we come across a post we think should stay closed, we have to search through review queues or play around with filters until we find the post and can vote to leave closed. The link in the timeline to the review is only added once the review is complete, so during an ongoing review it is hard to find.

Why? I think that users with the review privilege, who organically come across a post, often have more expertise in the subject matter than a random user from the queue and it should at least not be more difficult for them to vote than it is for reviewers .

  • 2
    This is a great proposal. It should be probably applied to the close votes as well (if implemented) for consistency. i.e. we can cast a close vote from the page of a question but not vote to leave open in the review – Tomerikoo Jul 8 at 11:50
  • There are more reasons than just that to want this. "Do I need to ask on meta for this to be opened/closed?" is a common reason I want to see the review item, to avoid wasting my time and others'. I would prefer if the ability to do this therefore wasn't linked to reputation. – Laurel Jul 12 at 16:35

The Too Broad close reason is not only for multi-part questions, but also for questions that are impossible to answer in a concise manner appropriate for our Q&A sites.

This was a problem with your modifications to the flag/close dialogs.

This close reason is not only about posts that ask multiple questions. It is also about questions that are too broad and which it is unreasonable to expect to be answered in the SE Q&A format. For example:

  • How has the USA's foreign relations changed since independence from the UK?
  • What steps do you need to take to establish a TLS 1.3 connection?
  • What is the Catholic Church's understanding of Mary?

Please don't make the same mistake here! Restore the original meaning of Too Broad!

  • 1
    A note for history: when the close reason was originally introduced in 2013, it only covered the latter case (where answers would be too long). The close reason was edited in 2017 to also cover the case of asking multiple distinct questions. While that 2017 wording covered both cases, it could easily be read as only covering the latter case, and it's clear that the writer of the current close reason interpreted it that way. – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog Jul 13 at 22:19
  • 2
    This is one of my chief complaints about the wording of this close reason (and also the off-site resource request reason's wording) since the close modal's big update. – TylerH Jul 21 at 13:51

Nitpick for the leave-close reasons:

The dialog which will be shown for leaving a question closed. It is titled "Why should this question remain closed?". The radio button options are, "It asks too many questions at once", "It lacks detail and needs more information", "It is off-topic for the site and likely cannot be edited to meet requirements of the site", "It is likely to be answered by opinion rather than fact and citations.", and "This question has been answered, is not unique, doesn't differentiate itself from another question.". Then there are two buttons: "Keep closed" and "Cancel"

The last two options end with a period. The previous three don't. Please standardize it one way or another.

  • 4
    Thanks for catching this. It will definitely be standardized in the live version. – Lisa Park Staff Jul 8 at 2:22

There are conflicting messages given to the editor and the reviewers. The editor thinks that they are telling reviewers that they "resolve the original close reason" (which kinds of ignores that a question can be closed for multiple reasons), meanwhile the reviewers are given the message that the editor claims that it "improves and/or resolves problems" with the question.

Rather than talking about the close reason(s), it would be better for the message to the editor to say "this edit makes the question meet the quality guidelines" and for the message to the reviewers to say that the edit "brings the question within the quality guidelines". This would prevent people from itemizing badness and to instead focus on generating good, on topic, specific questions.


This proposal quite comprehensively resolves the issues I've brought up with the current review architecture:

  • Only one edit can add the question to the queue, which means that if someone makes a minor edit only making grammar/spelling changes which adds the question to the queue, the author or anyone else won't be deprived of the ability to have their question reviewed for reopening. I actually previously requested the checkbox in idea 1; see my post for further details.

  • Question authors aren't currently notified of their questions being reviewed for reopening, so if the author edits it in an attempt to get it reopened, and reviewers disagree with it, they won't see that anything has happened and will just assume that their effort amounted to nothing. (This is especially applicable if a different close reason applies from the one shown in the close notice - e.g. a question closed as opinion-based that is edited to be objective, but is also off-topic for a specific reason - the review advice says such questions should be left closed, but the author is never told of the other close reason and now doesn't have a chance to fix that.)

  • As the review page shows up the edit by default, I've often seen users just review posts with minor edits as Leave Closed without checking the question itself. In many cases, the question itself was closed incorrectly or can be edited to be reopenable. I like how your proposals help limit such edits from even becoming review tasks in the first place, and in the cases where they do end up in the queue, users are prompted for a close reason.

There is one way that step 2 can be improved, though: if someone reviews to Leave Closed, it should open up the full close dialog where someone can choose any close reason, and if all reviewers choose a different close reason from the one shown in the banner, the question's closure will be changed to show that reason instead. Why?

  • As I pointed out in my second bullet above, one main use case for that button is if a different close reason applies from the one it was originally closed as. The proposal here is only adding one sentence - the rest of the close banner will still show guidance specific to the earlier close reason and the author won't be directed to the same resources they would had it been closed for the other reason in the first place.

  • In the case where the question should be instead be closed as a duplicate (i.e. if the question is closed for a non-duplicate reason, none of the non-duplicate reasons apply to the current revision, and a duplicate exists for the question), the current guidance says to reopen and re-close as a duplicate so that other viewers are directed to an answer. This is inefficient, in my opinion, as the same voters may not come back and re-close the question. It's better to have this close reason change be automatic rather than tediously manual.

This will also address this answer which asks for community-specific reasons to be available choices. This should provide an option to specify that the current close reason still applies, so users don't have to go through the dialog and select it again, which is tedious and also wouldn't work if a question was closed for an old close reason that was removed (but is still enforced).


First of all, thanks for working on this long standing area of grievance. I think this will make things better for all users, new and old alike, by removing friction from the system. On the one hand new users get better feedback on why their question remains closed, and on the other hand experienced users get less "garbage" in the reopen queue.

There is one major concern I have though.

Currently close notices on posts are designed to show only one close reason. In theory 5 users could have chosen 5 different reasons to close the post however.

We expect people to ask good questions, by reading [/help], [/on-topic], etc. but are proven that this is far from reality most of the time.

If we are now giving people feedback on why their question isn't going to get reopened. We could, in theory, give them 4 consecutive times different feedback on why their post remained closed. Because every time they edited, they fixed one issue, but were unaware of the other issues that were discovered with their question, and were presented a single reason on why their question couldn't be reopened. This could lead to very frustrating experience for the OP. Reviewers are protected against this grievance because they only get to see a question once in the reopen queue.

Then again this might prove to be problematic for smaller sites, where the number of active reviewers is limited. Perhaps all active reviewers have been depleted after the second try of reopening the post, so the post will sit in limbo for a long time, before eventually ageing out of the queue. So depending on what data shows us after an initial period, there might be a need for serving the same question to reviewers twice, after it sat in the queue for 6-8 days.


  • Please improve the post notices to include multiple reasons on why a question can't be reopened.
  • At the same time also improve the post notices to include the multitude of close reasons that were used to close the post, so users are better educated on what needs to be improved on their post, so their first try in the reopen queue can be more successful.
  • Consider serving a reopen review item to users that have seen it before once a post is in the queue for 6-8 days to prevent posts from being in limbo on sites with a limited number of reviewers.

Will the checkbox be viewable in the revision history for the post?

I can imagine arguments for it going both ways, so if somebody does(n’t) check the box while editing a closed question, would their choice be visible in the revision history.

Also: Would whether or not somebody checked the box be visible to moderators?

  • 4
    It will be indicated if an edit was submitted for review in both the timeline and revision history. – Lisa Park Staff Jul 9 at 15:06

If a Reopen votes reviewer elects to leave a question closed, the reviewer will be presented a “Leave closed reason” modal (similar to the close reason modal) that will return feedback to the editors.

What if it didn't enter the queue due to an edit (i.e. through reopen votes)?

  • Will it still present the reasons modal, or assume the original reason still holds?
  • Will it still update the closed post notice?
  • 1
    If someone flagged a post for reopening and didn’t make an edit, why would we need to provide a different close reason than the original to leave it closed? The only time that feedback is helpful is when someone tried to fix the identified problem and didn’t succeed entirely. – ColleenV Jul 7 at 19:23
  • 1
    @ColleenV Well... That's the reason for this answer. To make it clear, because as presented it sounds like the modal will always pop in the reopen queue. At the same time, it might make sense to actually show it anyway - maybe the original close reason is wrong? Anyway, again, bringing this to discussion is the reason for this answer... – Tomerikoo Jul 7 at 19:25
  • 1
    I’m trying to understand why you think someone choosing a different close reason for a post that hasn’t been changed since it was first closed would be helpful. A reopen review shouldn’t turn into “reclosing” the same question with reasons that are different from the first reasons. – ColleenV Jul 7 at 19:30
  • 1
    You might be right. But again, I posted this answer to ask for clarification about what will happen in this case. Currently, this product discovery post suggests that the modal will be presented in such cases – Tomerikoo Jul 7 at 19:36
  • 2
    The reasons modal would still appear. Based on the other feedback on this post, we'll likely add a "doesn't resolve original close reason(s)" option, but unlikely to update the closed post-notice since nothing has been changed. I'd be interested in investigating how often close reasons are wrong. – Lisa Park Staff Jul 8 at 18:18
  • @LisaPark Thanks for the response! I would like to re-raise considering that the post notice be changed even if choosing "doesn't resolve original reason". First for consistency, and more importantly, this can add information and help the OP (or potential editors) by simply emphasizing what's wrong with the question. This would help whether the post got to review by editing or by a vote – Tomerikoo Jul 10 at 13:25

If I choose to leave a post closed because the edit missed the mark a bit and the question needs more clean-up, but I believe it is salvageable, I might choose to follow the question so that I can see when OP / the editor edits the post again to see if it can then be reopened.

I understand why the queue does not allow the same reviewer to see the post again (or at least, I can see some reasons; I do not know if they were the actual reasons behind this decision).

I suggest an option or a section in the "leave closed" dialog to make it easier to reject the reopen and follow the post. It might be worth adding this to the whole UI, as a post you choose to vote to reopen might get rejected and then you can take a look at it again later (although as far as I remember, you won't be able to vote to reopen it again, so I'm not sure how useful this would be).

This also might make it more clear to users who don't know about the follow feature that they can follow the post to be notified of further changes to it to keep watching it.

  • 1
    You can still vote to reopen externally, and you'll be notified of edits through the following. – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog Jul 7 at 17:53
  • 1
    @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog Can't you only VTC/VTRO a post once (of each type)? Or am I remembering that incorrectly? – hyper-neutrino Jul 7 at 17:56
  • Oh, I didn't notice that the question would be in the queue as a result of your reopen vote. I thought you were just reviewing it. – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog Jul 7 at 17:57
  • @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog I meant if you reopen it through the queue and then it ends up staying closed. Although, I suppose that doesn't clear your reopen votes immediately, it just dequeues it and eventually your votes will expire. My bad. – hyper-neutrino Jul 7 at 17:59

I applaud this, especially the part about checking the box to indicate that you believe your edit should send it to the Reopen Votes queue, and the feedback that comes from the queue to the editor. I have seen quite a few edits by a certain user on ! posts (StackOverflow -> Stack Overflow) that unnecessarily throw the question into the queue and basically take up space.

Aside from that, questions:

  1. Will the "Improve Question" label be shown to all users, or just to the sub-3K users as it has been in the past?

  2. Does the "Reviewers will not be able to see the same question twice in the Reopen votes queue" (another nice touch to avoid adding your opinion 10 times) apply to diamond moderators or other users with more privileges than others?


Once a significant edit has been submitted, editors are still able to return to the edit screen and make further adjustments.

Is there a grace period to the "significant edit" option that allows unchecking it after initial submission by the editor?

I sometimes make an edit only to have a change of mind precisely after hitting the submit button.


What should be done in the case of this feature being abused?

For instance, user X has 2k rep. They edit a question to improve its grammar. They (for whatever reason) check “substantial edit”. What should be done if you view this happening?

  • 6
    I guess that's a case for 'flag for moderator', and those can make sure the user understand what that button is for... and if there is abuse, moderators can suspend, like with any other type of abuse? – Tinkeringbell Mod Jul 7 at 19:36
  • @Tinkeringbell I was wondering if there’s any built in options, but those would definitely work. – Ekadh Singh Jul 7 at 19:38
  • 4
    It might be possible to imagine some threshold number of "substantial edits" a user posts that in the end didn't reopen the question that will ban them from using the checkbox – Tomerikoo Jul 7 at 19:42
  • "abuse" that results in more questions being reopened will be viewed as the feature working – Kevin B Jul 7 at 20:10
  • Given I have seen a user on my primary community, earn hundreds of reputation, from submitting partial edits. I don't have faith that abuse of this system will be caught. I did my part by declining those partial incomplete edits, that once or twice, introduce their own grammatical or spelling mistakes (but more often failed to correct more than 20 minor grammatical issues). These edits were to questions that were not closed, had accepted answers, and were sometimes years old. – Ramhound Jul 7 at 21:24
  • @Ramhound What impetus would someone farming rep like this have for indicating "substantial edit"? It seems like you'd get the +2 either way. – Ian Campbell Jul 8 at 20:48
  • @IanCampbell - You only get +2 if the edit is approved. The user in question isn’t submitting quality edit proposals (they are just spamming them). Since they are submitting so many substandard edit proposals some of them are being approved. Thankfully, there is a limit, to the amount of reputation they will earn from these edit spamming technique. – Ramhound Jul 12 at 0:08

Can we please get a new reopen queue workflow like the one below?


  • 3
    Maybe this time we can something a bit less... Rube Goldberg? – Cody Gray Jul 8 at 2:50
  • 7
    I'd be happy to provide an updated map! Look forward to it in the review queue workflows launch post. – Lisa Park Staff Jul 8 at 3:04
  • 1
    Rube Goldberg - "...is best known for his popular cartoons depicting complicated gadgets performing simple tasks in indirect, convoluted ways.". Rube Goldberg machine. – P.Mort. - forgot Clay Shirky_q Jul 10 at 10:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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