[tag:status-completed]
> Questions must now be at least eight hours old before they can be added to the HNQ list. ~Catija

[tag:feature-request] **Set a minimum age for posts before they're eligible for the HNQ list.**

<sup>(this idea was already discussed elsewhere - posting it here because it looks like a very worthy addition to that "master list")</sup>

First time I saw it proposed by SE CM (Shog9) in a discussion of particular hot question [at TWP meta](https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6080/shouldnt-this-question-be-deleted-for-blatant-sexism/6081#comment18273_6081):

> <sub>delay _non-SO_ questions by some significant period of time - a day or more maybe - to give folks time to perform the sorts of cleanup and moderation that necessarily take longer here than on SO...</sub>

Later I saw similar idea mentioned by another SE CM (Catija) [at IPS meta](https://interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3648) and here [at MSE](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/327213/165773):

> <sub>This gives users on a site the chance to edit the post so that it's suitable for the potential network-wide consumption or close it if it's eligible for closure - and to even get it edited and reopened! It also gives the experts on site the chance to vote on - or even delete - answers. Essentially, more eyeballs will mean it's less likely that a problematic post will make it to the HNQ list. For your moderators, there's a reduced need for constant vigilance when you've got a, say, six-hour delay before a complicated question can start causing problems...</sub>

---

My own take on above suggestions is, while I agree with them in general, I think we could start experimenting with smaller delay, like 3-5 hours (and only increase it if it later turns out that it is indeed not enough). By design, questions get hot when they quickly start attracting more than average attention of site regulars so that we can reasonably expect that in the absence of "deafening" upvotes, answers and comments from sidebar passers-by this attention of active regulars can be also quickly focused on the needed cleanup actions.

Another thing I'm not comfortable with is strict focus on smaller sites. While I agree that waiting for a full day would make no sense for Stack Overflow (though I also can't see how it could be harmful), I think it still could benefit of some smaller delay like for a few hours. In particular, this would give [tag:dupehammer] holders better chance to close duplicates which sometimes pop up in hot questions from SO (and kind of incentivise asking and answering obvious duplicates due to extra upvotes coming to HNQ).