Following the latest Review queue workflows - Final release, we now have the option to decide if edits of closed questions should actually send it to the reopen votes queue or not (as was done automatically before for every edit). It looks like this:

Image of the bottom part of the editing window, showing the edit summary field and the "Submit for review" check-box

This is great, but it got me wondering - as a user with >3k rep, I can cast reopen votes. If I want to edit a closed question for reopening, I can just edit it and then vote to reopen.

Is there an added benefit/reason to actually mark "Submit for review" when I can just vote to reopen? Or should the check-box be completely hidden for >3k users?


2 Answers 2


Checking that box will put the question in the Reopen Votes review queue, but it doesn't cast an actual reopen vote (one of the five/three necessary to reopen the question). If you want to reopen the question as soon as possible, you have to cast a separate reopen vote regardless. Perhaps this could be made automatic, but in the old situation (where most of the time the edit would trigger the queue automatically), you had to separately cast a reopen vote as well.

And that is also the (only?) reason why it's useful to have this checkbox; if you're out of your 24/50/12 reopen votes for the day, you can still check this option and have the question be considered for reopening.

  • Wow, I guess that (sadly) I don't vote to reopen enough that I actually forgot that we can run out of them and didn't even consider this reason... Considering that we can, your answer makes perfect sense. Now it makes me think, if that is the actual reason for it - why can't we still flag for closure if we're out of close votes...
    – Tomerikoo
    Commented Nov 28, 2021 at 18:57
  • Well ... I doubt people ever run out of their 50 reopen votes per day. Perhaps a staff member could figure that out...
    – Glorfindel Mod
    Commented Nov 28, 2021 at 18:58
  • Well, the number of close votes per user does vary by site, down to 12/day (Stack Apps), with 24/day being the most common on a site-by-site basis. Presumably, a user's need for such votes scales in a roughly equivalent manner, per site.
    – Makyen
    Commented Nov 29, 2021 at 1:18
  • @Tomerikoo I think it was just oversight when they developed this feature of "major revisions". The way they implemented it is that usually the first edit after closure pushed the post to the re-open queue, even if somebody only capitilized some I's. To prevent this from ruining the questions one shot at re-opening after editing they included the checkbox, so that now it only goes into the re-open queue, when the user indicates their revision is substansive enough. So coming from that point of view It could be that details like this weren't considered in that process.
    – Luuklag
    Commented Nov 29, 2021 at 8:03

I think it shows a diff to reopen reviewers when you select this option versus just casting a reopen vote. See this review with a diff for an example. (I think Glorfindel is right: you need to cast a reopen vote because the system won't do it for you. In this example, the user who edited went on to review the post in the review queues, which is weird.)

I checked back in my history and found a question that I edited before this was a feature. When my reopen vote brought it to the queue, it showed no diff. See also the timeline.

  • That is indeed another good point. It is obviously better to have the review item with a diff to emphasize for reviewers that the post came because of a specific edit. I asked this question because it felt weird to submit for review and then vote to reopen. I guess that having an automatic reopen vote when submitting for review will be the most reasonable (and if out of votes, just send to reopen queue)
    – Tomerikoo
    Commented Nov 28, 2021 at 19:22

You must log in to answer this question.

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