Return to Question

I've noticed in the reopen queue history and 10k close page that there are at least some people who will cast a reopen vote on nearly anything they see.

I've gotta ask... why do you do this?

A bit ago, Rachel commented

@RobertHarvey I am showing the number of close votes/voters compared to the number of reopen votes/voters. I think the core problem here is summarized at the end of my answer: Your chances of getting something closed or reopened is tied to a random variable: how many people review the question at the same time as you. In the case of new open content, it is viewed by many people, including our group of "close happy" users. In the case of closed content, very few people view it, and we don't even have a decent sized group of active "reopen happy" users.

I'll say that is not completely accurate in that if there is sufficient change to the question to merit it reopening, it's actually rather easy to get it reopened. Sometimes it takes a bit of hunting for votes in chat (we can typically find 3 or 4 without bugging a mod)... but when it is something that should be reopened, the biggest challenge is finding the votes.

However, here's the thing... you've got one vote and one shot to get a question reopened. When you use your vote as a one off protest vote on everything that goes through the queue or when a question that you answered gets closed - it makes it that much harder to find the votes when something should be reopened (and try to use the reopen review rather than asking in chat or bugging a mod). Once that reopen vote times out, you can't cast it again - it is gone. So even when it does get fixed, you won't be able to cast a reopen vote on it.

If it is true that that reopening depends heavily on getting people to hit 'reopen' in the review queue rather than leave closed, why do you vote when there's no change? or when there's only a minimal change that doesn't fix the perceived issues that closed it?

And for that matter, if you honestly think it is something that should get reopened, but don't believe it will, edit it so that it is a good question that even the most hardened close voter will agree it is something that should be asked.

Tossing your votes as a one off protest vote makes it that much harder to reopen good questions when the question does get edited into shape. So why cast those votes without trying to edit the question to address the close reason and make better and unequivocally able to be reopened?

I've noticed in the reopen queue history and 10k close page that there are at least some people who will cast a reopen vote on nearly anything they see.

I've gotta ask... why do you do this?

A bit ago, Rachel commented

@RobertHarvey I am showing the number of close votes/voters compared to the number of reopen votes/voters. I think the core problem here is summarized at the end of my answer: Your chances of getting something closed or reopened is tied to a random variable: how many people review the question at the same time as you. In the case of new open content, it is viewed by many people, including our group of "close happy" users. In the case of closed content, very few people view it, and we don't even have a decent sized group of active "reopen happy" users.

I'll say that is not completely accurate in that if there is sufficient change to the question to merit it reopening, it's actually rather easy to get it reopened. Sometimes it takes a bit of hunting for votes in chat (we can typically find 3 or 4 without bugging a mod)... but when it is something that should be reopened, the biggest challenge is finding the votes.

However, here's the thing... you've got one vote and one shot to get a question reopened. When you use your vote as a one off protest vote on everything that goes through the queue or when a question that you answered gets closed - it makes it that much harder to find the votes when something should be reopened (and try to use the reopen review rather than asking in chat or bugging a mod). Once that reopen vote times out, you can't cast it again - it is gone. So even when it does get fixed, you won't be able to cast a reopen vote on it.

If it is true that that reopening depends heavily on getting people to hit 'reopen' in the review queue rather than leave closed, why do you vote when there's no change? or when there's only a minimal change that doesn't fix the perceived issues that closed it?

And for that matter, if you honestly think it is something that should get reopened, but don't believe it will, edit it so that it is a good question that even the most hardened close voter will agree it is something that should be asked.

Tossing your votes as a one off protest vote makes it that much harder to reopen good questions when the question does get edited into shape. So why cast those votes without trying to edit the question to address the close reason and make better and unequivocally able to be reopened?

I've noticed in the reopen queue history and 10k close page that there are at least some people who will cast a reopen vote on nearly anything they see.

I've gotta ask... why do you do this?

A bit ago, rachel commented

@RobertHarvey I am showing the number of close votes/voters compared to the number of reopen votes/voters. I think the core problem here is summarized at the end of my answer: Your chances of getting something closed or reopened is tied to a random variable: how many people review the question at the same time as you. In the case of new open content, it is viewed by many people, including our group of "close happy" users. In the case of closed content, very few people view it, and we don't even have a decent sized group of active "reopen happy" users.

I'll say that is not completely accurate in that if there is sufficient change to the question to merit it reopening, it's actually rather easy to get it reopened. Sometimes it takes a bit of hunting for votes in chat (we can typically find 3 or 4 without bugging a mod)... but when it is something that should be reopened, the biggest challenge is finding the votes.

However, here's the thing... you've got one vote and one shot to get a question reopened. When you use your vote as a one off protest vote on everything that goes through the queue or when a question that you answered gets closed - it makes it that much harder to find the votes when something should be reopened (and try to use the reopen review rather than asking in chat or bugging a mod). Once that reopen vote times out, you can't cast it again - it is gone. So even when it does get fixed, you won't be able to cast a reopen vote on it.

If it is true that that reopening depends heavily on getting people to hit 'reopen' in the review queue rather than leave closed, why do you vote when there's no change? or when there's only a minimal change that doesn't fix the perceived issues that closed it?

And for that matter, if you honestly think it is something that should get reopened, but don't believe it will, edit it so that it is a good question that even the most hardened close voter will agree it is something that should be asked.

Tossing your votes as a one off protest vote makes it that much harder to reopen good questions when the question does get edited into shape. So why cast those votes without trying to edit the question to address the close reason and make better and unequivocally able to be reopened?

I've noticed in the reopen queue history and 10k close page that there are at least some people who will cast a reopen vote on nearly anything they see.

I've gotta ask... why do you do this?

A bit ago, Rachel commented

@RobertHarvey I am showing the number of close votes/voters compared to the number of reopen votes/voters. I think the core problem here is summarized at the end of my answer: Your chances of getting something closed or reopened is tied to a random variable: how many people review the question at the same time as you. In the case of new open content, it is viewed by many people, including our group of "close happy" users. In the case of closed content, very few people view it, and we don't even have a decent sized group of active "reopen happy" users.

I'll say that is not completely accurate in that if there is sufficient change to the question to merit it reopening, it's actually rather easy to get it reopened. Sometimes it takes a bit of hunting for votes in chat (we can typically find 3 or 4 without bugging a mod)... but when it is something that should be reopened, the biggest challenge is finding the votes.

However, here's the thing... you've got one vote and one shot to get a question reopened. When you use your vote as a one off protest vote on everything that goes through the queue or when a question that you answered gets closed - it makes it that much harder to find the votes when something should be reopened (and try to use the reopen review rather than asking in chat or bugging a mod). Once that reopen vote times out, you can't cast it again - it is gone. So even when it does get fixed, you won't be able to cast a reopen vote on it.

If it is true that that reopening depends heavily on getting people to hit 'reopen' in the review queue rather than leave closed, why do you vote when there's no change? or when there's only a minimal change that doesn't fix the perceived issues that closed it?

And for that matter, if you honestly think it is something that should get reopened, but don't believe it will, edit it so that it is a good question that even the most hardened close voter will agree it is something that should be asked.

Tossing your votes as a one off protest vote makes it that much harder to reopen good questions when the question does get edited into shape. So why cast those votes without trying to edit the question to address the close reason and make better and unequivocally able to be reopened?