Timeline for answer to Upcoming Feature: New Question Close Experience by Adriaan
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
38 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 2020 at 9:10 | history | edited | Adriaan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added clarification that reopen votes also push a question into the queue
|
| Apr 2, 2020 at 16:04 | comment | added | jpmc26 | @Adriaan I suppose it wouldn't be equivalent of the "reopen" button, then. Whatever mechanism the system uses to kick the the question into the reopen queue should be used if the OP selects yes on the prompt. The point would be to give the OP (and maybe other editors) more awareness and control over what edits kick it into the queue, since doing it automatically clearly isn't accomplishing the goals SO intends. | |
| Apr 2, 2020 at 15:43 | comment | added | Adriaan | @jpmc26 how would that be different from the current situation? <3k rep shouldn't be given the prompt as they can't vote to reopen, and those with >3k already have the reopen button to use and get the question into the queue. | |
| Apr 2, 2020 at 9:07 | history | edited | Adriaan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Apr 1, 2020 at 13:48 | comment | added | Makyen Mod | @SecurityHound The process is the same for all sites, including SU (see last paragraph). This question on Politics demonstrates that questions on other sites can be in the reopen queue multiple times (3 in that case). The first was due to an edit. The later two were almost certainly the result of reopen votes. [Note: I didn't go hunting for an example, that question just happened to be the subject of a hot meta post for that site, which I was visiting as a result of a SmokeDetector report.] | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 13:04 | comment | added | Security Hound | @Makyen - The fact a question gets thrown into the reopen queue multiple times might be a Stack Overflow only feature. That certainly is NOT the case at Super User. While this proposed feature is a Stack Overflow feature today, it will eventually be a Stack Exchange feature, and Super User will have to deal with questions being automatically reopened. My suggestion was an ability for trusted user to push a question into the queue manually. Which went along with Adriaan's statement, the first edit (only) after a question was closed, throws a question into the reopen queue. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 13:02 | comment | added | Makyen Mod | @SecurityHound Minor nit: the question was never reopened. It was deleted by the OP seven days after its second entry into the reopen queue, which invalidated the second reopen review. It was, however, closed outside of the close-vote review queue, which invalidated the close-vote review. I do think we both agree the process past closure could use significant improvement (e.g. informing the OP of the actual issues with their post and reopen reviews after the OP actually fixes such issues). | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 12:54 | comment | added | jpmc26 | Sorry if someone else suggested this, but I don't have time to read through all the comments right now. Why not give the OP (or maybe everyone) a prompt after an edit asking if they think they have edited the question into an on topic state? The result of answering "yes" would be equivalent to the "reopen" button at the bottom of the question. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 12:40 | comment | added | Security Hound | What I see from that timeline is a question that was thrown into the queue, and reopened outside of the queue, which invalidated the reopen queue review. Otherwise I don't know what "invalidated" means in the timeline. I think we are talking around each other but are basically saying the process to reopen questions needs a lot of work. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 12:31 | comment | added | Makyen Mod | @SecurityHound Yes, you can't see it, I'm aware of that. There's not much I can do about that, other than provide an image, and claim I cast a reopen vote at 2018-01-08 20:26:22Z. I note it spent 7 days in the reopen queue and received no reviews, which may indicate there's an issue with showing the review to users. I haven't checked the reopen queue history for activity during that time to see if there was something else going on. In its previous time in the reopen queue it received 3 "leave closed" reviews within 2 hours, so no reveiws in 7 days is strange. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 12:05 | comment | added | Security Hound | @Makyen - An example I can't see due to my Stack Overflow reputation? | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 12:04 | comment | added | Makyen Mod | @SecurityHound Earlier, I linked to an example question of exactly that case, where the post re-entered the reopen queue, as the result of a reopen vote I cast. It reentered the reopen queue 1 hour after having exited the reopen queue, which it had entered as a result of being edited by the OP. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 12:04 | comment | added | Adriaan | @Secur and that last comment of yours is something we haven't experienced ourselves on SO, hence we would like to see an example of that, such that we can update our proposals on how to fix the review queues. We're not trying to attack or incriminate you, we even agree on that the current system is broken and needs to be fixed. We just want to be precise in what should be fixed, hence the question for an example or meta page with someone explaining and substantiating that claim of yours. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 12:01 | comment | added | Security Hound | @Makyen - Unless something has changed. Even if I were to vote to reopen that question, it would not appear in this queue for other users, if it actually does then I need to answer the meta.superuser.com question I linked to with that fact. I want to see more ways to get a question to be reviewed, even if it's multiple times, provided the mechanic is offered to users with more privileges. We shouldn't have to be forced to use a chatroom, to make sure edge cases with 3 votes reopen votes, are actually reopened in a timely matter. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 11:57 | comment | added | Makyen Mod | @SecurityHound Yes, that question won't get back into the reopen queue, unless someone casts a reopen vote. [Your claim was that it would never enter the reopen queue again, specifically even if it gets a reopen vote, but I've seen no evidence of that.] I, and I believe a lot of other people, agree that the current system has some serious drawbacks and is significantly broken in a lot of cases. There's quite a bit that can be done to improve that. E.g. giving question authors accurate information about what their question needs in order to be reopened is important, but is currently lacking. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 11:47 | comment | added | Security Hound | @Makyen - The best I will do is this meta.superuser.com question raised last year. I am not feeling particularly up to the task to finding a specific case. However, this is an example of the failure with the current system. The author decided to edit their question, due to that edit it was thrown into the queue to be reopened, but because the edit did not address the real problems with the question it remains closed. It will never be thrown back into the queue. I voted to keep that question closed. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 11:41 | comment | added | Makyen Mod | @SecurityHound Primarily, I've asked you to provide an example of what you claim to be happening. Please do so. I've provided an example of it working as expected. Without an example of it working the way that you've stated you've observed, I have to assume that your observation was inaccurate (which is quite easy to have happen, given how reviews and the timeline work). | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 11:40 | comment | added | Security Hound | @Makyen - I have hidden my other communities, due to experiencing serial downvoting against my Stack Overflow profile, but I am not going to share my Super User profile. I will not be returning to this community due to your last comment. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 10:59 | comment | added | Makyen Mod | @SecurityHound Your account on Stack Overflow has <3k rep (and you haven't lost enough rep from bounties to have once been above 3k). You can't have reviewed any posts in the reopen queue, let alone the "thousands" you claim. You have a total of 146 reviews on SO for the review queues you have access to. Your SO account has no other accounts on the Stack Exchange Network associated with it. Based on that, I'm having a hard time believing any of your claims. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 10:49 | comment | added | Makyen Mod | @Secur As an example of it working properly, this post entered the reopen queue a second time 1 hour after it exited the queue. In the case of that question, it had entered the reopen queue the first time due to an edit by the OP and the second time in response to a reopen vote. It looks like the task to move things into the reopen queue runs at approximately XX:45 and XX:15, and may take several minutes to complete (at least up to 5 minutes), so there may be a considerable delay between the reopen vote and the question entering the reopen queue. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 10:49 | comment | added | Makyen Mod | @SecurityHound If things work the way you state, based on your own observations, then you should be able to find an example of that happening. The only way you can know a post didn't enter/re-enter the reopen queue in response to a reopen vote is if you cast a reopen vote and see no reopen review entry in the timeline. To see the entry in the timeline, the review must be complete, which may be up to >14 days. Please go through your reopen votes and find a question where your reopen vote didn't put the post in the reopen queue. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 9:52 | history | edited | Adriaan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 36 characters in body
|
| Apr 1, 2020 at 9:47 | history | edited | Adriaan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 395 characters in body
|
| Apr 1, 2020 at 9:18 | comment | added | Security Hound | @Adriaan - My references? I have reviewed thousands of questions in the review queue. My reference is simply my experience with the system. I was trying to suggest an alternative to the awful suggestion of automatically reopening every close question that isn't a duplicate. Which by the way, duplicates still get voted to be reopened, and the community isn't perfect. The bottom line, authors don't realize they only have one chance, to get their question in the reopen queue. They are not even aware that queue exists typically. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 9:16 | comment | added | Adriaan | @SecurityHound I think I catch your drift now (though I'd still like to see references). We disagree on that a 3rd party user can edit a question to be on-topic. As I said: it shouldn't have been closed in the first place if cosmetic edits (all a 3rd party can do) makes it on-topic. The part of giving a question more shots at getting into the queue is what my proposal is about, with checks to prevent the OP from making edit upon edit, abusing the system. I don't see why a third party needs a checkbox, especially since the reopen-vote option is already there. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 9:04 | comment | added | Security Hound | @Adriaan - I also used the word "back" which implies it had been in the queue once before. What I said is certainly the case. If a question was in the queue, was not reopened, then a vote to reopen it after it was edited does not result in the question being thrown back into the reopen queue. Questions sitting with 2 and 3 votes to be reopened is a problem that could easily be solved. There is no easy way to find questions with reopen votes that are pending. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 9:02 | comment | added | Adriaan | @SecurityHound that's not what you said in bold in your comment, which is why we're asking. The easier-to-reopen part is what I addressed in this answer. Thus, again, why do you say a reopen vote won't push it into the queue when, in fact, all evidence we have is that it does? | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 8:59 | comment | added | Security Hound | @Makyen - Once a question has been in the queue, after the first edit, after the question has been closed it doesn't get thrown back into the queue. We need to make it easier to reopen the question, through a review process, not make it automatic without any sort of review. | |
| Mar 31, 2020 at 16:45 | comment | added | Makyen Mod | @SecurityHound A reopen-vote will push the question into the reopen queue, if the question isn't already in the queue.There's a delay until the task which moves things in/out of queues runs. How often it runs depends on the site: 5–30 minutes; 5 on SO, IIRC. There may be conditions under which a reopen-vote won't put the question in the reopen queue, but I'm not sure what those are. I do know there are rare times when a close-vote doesn't put the question in the CV queue, so I assume there are some corner cases for reopen-votes too. Why do you believe it doesn't get put in the RO queue? | |
| Mar 31, 2020 at 7:52 | history | edited | Adriaan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 53 characters in body
|
| Mar 31, 2020 at 7:19 | comment | added | Adriaan | @SecurityHound would you mind clarifying what you mean? There currently already is the ability to cast a reopen vote on a question once you have >3k rep. It appears as a button beside the flag, share, edit etc buttons. That will, as far as my knowledge serves, push the question into the queue. What can happen, of course, is that the consensus after the queue is "Leave closed", but that's another story. Can you give a reference that a reopen vote does not push a question into the queue? I find that hard to believe, as that'd make the feature almost pointless, both vote and queue. | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 20:51 | comment | added | Security Hound | @Adriaan - How about a user, with enough reputation to edit the question without being put into a review, has the ability to put the question back into the reopen queue? This could easily be done with a checkbox. This allows for editors, to throw questions back into the queue, if they believe the question has a chance. This should of course come without any penalty if the community believes otherwise. I think the biggest failure is the fact, a reopen vote, does not push a question back into the reopen queue. A question can sit without another vote even if it's a perfect question. | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 13:33 | history | edited | Adriaan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Sentences asking a question should end with a question mark
|
| Mar 29, 2020 at 18:52 | comment | added | Adriaan | @Makyen if only someone with database access and affinity with the community could whip some statistics... | |
| Mar 29, 2020 at 16:16 | comment | added | Makyen Mod | I strongly agree with this. It's very rare for an edit by a user other than the OP to be able to change a question such that it's on-topic. It's even more rare for such an edit to come from a user with <3k rep. If a user with >3k rep edits such that the question is now on-topic, they should know that it's now on-topic and vote to reopen. So, the only edits by people other than the OP which make the question on-topic where the editor shouldn't be voting to reopen is when the user has <3k rep or >3k rep and has previously voted to reopen. My guess is that's a very low percentage of edits. | |
| Mar 29, 2020 at 15:49 | history | edited | Adriaan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 189 characters in body
|
| Mar 29, 2020 at 15:22 | history | edited | Adriaan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 271 characters in body
|
| Mar 29, 2020 at 14:05 | history | answered | Adriaan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
