Today, the system was changed to allow users to vote to close or reopen questions with active bounties. However, it looks like a detail was missed when making this change.

For a long time, questions with active bounties have been ineligible to appear in the close vote review queue, meaning that if a question with an active close vote review had a bounty started on it, the review would be invalidated. Previously, this made perfect sense, as questions with active bounties could not be voted to close. However, this now doesn't make sense due to today's change.

About an hour ago, we did some testing on Stack Overflow and found that questions with active bounties aren't entering the review queue when a close vote or flag is cast on them. Additionally, as the same script is used for invalidating review queues as creating them (all it does is compare the current review tasks against the list of eligible questions, and invalidate any that aren't in the list), it means that if someone starts a bounty on a question with pending close reviews, the review is still invalidated in the same way as it used to be earlier, even though it can still be voted to close.

Questions with active bounties should now be eligible to appear in the close votes review queue, and existing reviews should not be invalidated upon a bounty starting.

This may also possibly be an issue for closed, bountied questions with pending reopen votes, with the reopen votes queue, but I haven't tested this - it'd be nice if this were fixed as well if it is.

  • 1
    Definitely not meant to dismiss the legitimacy of the bug / need to fix it, but: This is at least partially mitigated by the fact that bounties, by their nature, are designed to draw a high level of attention to a question - where review queues are meant to draw curation attention to posts that might otherwise be missed. I'm not too worried about the long-term outcome, where they stay open when they should be closed. But in a few weeks when there's data, if I'm bored, I'll query it just to see.
    – Slate StaffMod
    Commented Jun 28 at 0:11
  • @Slate I'm mainly concerned about the fact that the reviews are invalidated if someone starts a bounty on the question. On sites like Stack Overflow where there are a lot of questions with bounties, since the bountied tab sorts questions with later bounties last, the attention mainly falls on questions with earlier bounties (those expiring sooner), and by the time a question with previously-cast close votes makes it to the top, the existing close votes would have likely aged away already. Commented Jun 28 at 0:37
  • Continuing, I believe that a review task is always a good additional measure to ensure that things aren't missed. I make a similar argument on Interpersonal Skills Meta to have the criteria for First answers changed there: while new answers do bump the question to the home page, an additional review is worthwhile to make sure that deletion-worthy answers aren't missed. Commented Jun 28 at 0:39
  • 1
    Sensible points. Though I'll note that bounties last 7 days and close votes last 14, so questions should never hit the top of the list with the CVs aged out, if the CVs were cast within a week of the bounty starting. That doesn't guarantee complete coverage, of course - only fixing the bug would do that. At any rate, none of this is meant as an argument to not fix the bug, just that it's not quiiiite as bad as it might look.
    – Slate StaffMod
    Commented Jun 28 at 1:21
  • 2
    @Slate Close votes only last 4 days if the question has more than 100 views, which on SO is likely through organic traffic through the required two-day waiting period for a bounty, or, as you mention, the additional views (most of which from users without enough reputation to vote to close) that a bounty gives. The question will be held to the new aging threshold even if the votes were cast prior to accruing 100 views. I just want to make sure you have the complete picture, as well as make it so that the wait for a fix doesn't go into 6-8 weeks... Commented Jun 28 at 2:48
  • 1
    Thanks - you're right, I missed that nuance.
    – Slate StaffMod
    Commented Jun 28 at 12:43


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .