^{This answer mostly follows a different line of thought than my existing answer. Hence I posted it separately.}

TL;DR: The current system is made as if this feature request were already implemented or has mechanisms compensating for its absence.

I just noticed how ironically a lot of aspects of the current system are either assuming that askers are informed about the closure of their question or consider informing the asker about closure or impending closure a good idea:

• The closure notice of every question that is closed for a reason other than duplicate contains:

  If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.

  While this can be understood to be addressed at everyone reading the question, there is no denying that it is mostly directed at the asker who is most likely to fix the question. Thus, it assumes that the asker reads the closure notice.

• For the first five days after closure, closed questions are labeled on hold rather than closed and edits will make them go to the reopen queue. This was done to make closure sound less final, to encourage improvements and to facilitate the reopening process. Of course, all of this makes only sense if the asker reads the closure notice.

• On beta sites, if a question is closed without a comment, a moderator flag is raised automatically. The obvious idea behind this is that the moderator can tell the asker that something is wrong with the question and provide guidance on improving the question, if none of the close voters bothered to do so. Funnily, the latter is fully understandable if a close reason is spot-on, which happens often enough, in particular if sites have well-phrased close reasons for common cases.

  As a moderator of a beta site where this is the case, I often find myself dealing with such flags by leaving a comment that says nothing more than “please see above”, which serves no other purpose than ensuring that the asker noticed the closure.

• Voting to close a question with a custom close reason leaves this close reason as a comment, even if the question is not even closed yet. As other users with close privileges could see the close reason anyway, I doubt that the system works this way to give people opportunity to discuss closure. Rather this was done to inform the asker of the problem with the question.

• Votes to close a question as duplicate generate an automatic comment to inform the asker of the proposed duplicate and the asker is then asked to either confirm the duplicate or to edit the question to clarify how it is different from the suggested duplicate. This obviously only works with informing the asker of the suggested duplicate (what the comment does).

^{This answer mostly follows a different line of thought than my existing answer. Hence I posted it separately.}

TL;DR: The current system is made as if this feature request were already implemented or has mechanisms compensating for its absence.

I just noticed how ironically a lot of aspects of the current system are either assuming that askers are informed about the closure of their question or consider informing the asker about closure or impending closure a good idea:

• The closure notice of every question that is closed for a reason other than duplicate contains:

  If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.

  While this can be understood to be addressed at everyone reading the question, there is no denying that it is mostly directed at the asker who is most likely to fix the question. Thus, it assumes that the asker reads the closure notice.

• For the first five days after closure, closed questions are labeled on hold rather than closed and edits will make them go to the reopen queue. This was done to make closure sound less final, to encourage improvements and to facilitate the reopening process. Of course, all of this makes only sense if the asker reads the closure notice.

• On beta sites, if a question is closed without a comment, a moderator flag is raised automatically. The obvious idea behind this is that the moderator can tell the asker that something is wrong with the question and provide guidance on improving the question, if none of the close voters bothered to do so. Funnily, the latter is fully understandable if a close reason is spot-on, which happens often enough, in particular if sites have well-phrased close reasons for common cases.

  As a moderator of a beta site where this is the case, I often find myself dealing with such flags by leaving a comment that says nothing more than “please see above”, which serves no other purpose than ensuring that the asker noticed the closure.

• Voting to close a question with a custom close reason leaves this close reason as a comment, even if the question is not even closed yet. As other users with close privileges could see the close reason anyway, I doubt that the system works this way to give people opportunity to discuss closure. Rather this was done to inform the asker of the problem with the question.

• Votes to close a question as duplicate generate an automatic comment to inform the asker of the proposed duplicate and the asker is then asked to either confirm the duplicate or to edit the question to clarify how it is different from the suggested duplicate. This obviously only works with informing the asker of the suggested duplicate (what the comment does).

^{This answer mostly follows a different line of thought than my existing answer. Hence I posted it separately.}

TL;DR: The current system is made as if this feature request were already implemented or has mechanisms compensating for its absence.

I just noticed how ironically a lot of aspects of the current system are either assuming that askers are informed about the closure of their question or consider informing the asker about closure or impending closure a good idea:

• The closure notice of every question that is closed for a reason other than duplicate contains:

  If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.

  While this can be understood to be addressed at everyone reading the question, there is no denying that it is mostly directed at the asker who is most likely to fix the question. Thus, it assumes that the asker reads the closure notice.

• For the first five after closure, closed questions are labeled on hold rather than closed and edits will make them go to the reopen queue. This was done to make closure sound less final, to encourage improvements and to facilitate the reopening process. Of course, all of this makes only sense if the asker reads the closure notice.

• On beta sites, if a question is closed without a comment, a moderator flag is raised automatically. The obvious idea behind this is that the moderator can tell the asker that something is wrong with the question and provide guidance on improving the question, if none of the close voters bothered to do so. Funnily, the latter is fully understandable if a close reason is spot-on, which happens often enough, in particular if sites have well-phrased close reasons for common cases.

  As a moderator of a beta site where this is the case, I often find myself dealing with such flags by leaving a comment that says nothing more than “please see above”, which serves no other purpose than ensuring that the asker noticed the closure.

• Voting to close a question with a custom close reason leaves this close reason as a comment, even if the question is not even closed yet. As other users with close privileges could see the close reason anyway, I doubt that the system works this way to give people opportunity to discuss closure. Rather this was done to inform the asker of the problem with the question.

• Votes to close a question as duplicate generate an automatic comment to inform the asker of the proposed duplicate and the asker is then asked to either confirm the duplicate or to edit the question to clarify how it is different from the suggested duplicate. This obviously only works with informing the asker of the suggested duplicate (what the comment does).

^{This answer mostly follows a different line of thought than my existing answer. Hence I posted it separately.}

TL;DR: The current system is made as if this feature request were already implemented or has mechanisms compensating for its absence.

I just noticed how ironically a lot of aspects of the current system are either assuming that askers are informed about the closure of their question or consider informing the asker about closure or impending closure a good idea:

• The closure notice of every question that is closed for a reason other than duplicate contains:

  If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.

  While this can be understood to be addressed at everyone reading the question, there is no denying that it is mostly directed at the asker who is most likely to fix the question. Thus, it assumes that the asker reads the closure notice.

• For the first five days after closure, closed questions are labeled on hold rather than closed and edits will make them go to the reopen queue. This was done to make closure sound less final, to encourage improvements and to facilitate the reopening process. Of course, all of this makes only sense if the asker reads the closure notice.

• On beta sites, if a question is closed without a comment, a moderator flag is raised automatically. The obvious idea behind this is that the moderator can tell the asker that something is wrong with the question and provide guidance on improving the question, if none of the close voters bothered to do so. Funnily, the latter is fully understandable if a close reason is spot-on, which happens often enough, in particular if sites have well-phrased close reasons for common cases.

  As a moderator of a beta site where this is the case, I often find myself dealing with such flags by leaving a comment that says nothing more than “please see above”, which serves no other purpose than ensuring that the asker noticed the closure.

• Voting to close a question with a custom close reason leaves this close reason as a comment, even if the question is not even closed yet. As other users with close privileges could see the close reason anyway, I doubt that the system works this way to give people opportunity to discuss closure. Rather this was done to inform the asker of the problem with the question.

• Votes to close a question as duplicate generate an automatic comment to inform the asker of the proposed duplicate and the asker is then asked to either confirm the duplicate or to edit the question to clarify how it is different from the suggested duplicate. This obviously only works with informing the asker of the suggested duplicate (what the comment does).