3

When a question gets closed, it can be asked for reopening, but in my experience that is very hard to happen. Even if after editing it shows again in the main page, the tag "[closed]" acts as a deterrent for further looking.

Voltage of SODIMM DDR3 slots is an example of my own, which triggered this OP (although I think this since a long time ago, based on participating of many SE sites).

Is there any way of improving the chances of consideration for reopening? (perhaps the need for 5 votes is too strict, I don't know).

A few related (some are subjective) remarks:

  1. The chances of consideration for reopening needs improvement... perhaps the SO admins don't think the same way.
  2. I see often questions that are closed, and they look quite appropriate to me. I don't know if that is always after edits or not. Moreover, in many cases I can't figure out how the reason provided for closing applies to the question. How can I benchmark Linux PC is an example.
  3. Some of the closed questions have answer/s that suggest they were reasonable, as per (same example as above):
    1. The answers are upvoted,
    2. The answers were posted by highly reputed contributors,
    3. The answers are marked as accepted
  4. It would be interesting to see statistics on closure of questions, reopening, etc. Also tied to reputation, and other factors that help understanding and improving. I guess that is actually done by the SO team.

Here a few examples of what can be done within the current limits of SO, which in practice looks insufficient to me.

  1. How can we bring a closed question to immediate moderator attention?.
  2. How do you reopen a closed question?.
  3. Best ways to get questions re-looked at? (very detailed).
10
  • Improvements to the reopening system already happened. Instead of a single reopen vote that happened after only the first edit. Questions are put in the queue after every edit after being closed. If they are never edited, or only contain meta commentary about being closed, they won’t be reopened. Your closed question asks two questions, instead of a singular focused question about DDR3 voltage compatibility. As it stands now, it contains meta commentary that indicates, it cannot be fixed and that’s obvious not the case.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Apr 1, 2022 at 23:29
  • 1
    This question specifically should have been submitted to Meta Stack Exchange since it involves changing a system Super User has no control over
    – Ramhound
    Commented Apr 1, 2022 at 23:30
  • @Ramhound - 1) My OP was heavily edited after closure, including (but not exclusively) a meta comment. In its current form, it contained two questions only in appearance, by having two question marks. But conceptually it was only one question, looking for a single piece of information, with the way of writing aimed at minimizing ambiguity (which may very well happen). So I simply removed one of the question marks now. If having two question marks is the reason for having kept it closed, I guess such criterion only makes SO less useful.
    – sancho.s ReinstateMonicaCellio
    Commented Apr 3, 2022 at 10:48
  • @Ramhound - 2) Proof about its focus is the fact that Tonny provided a very concise answer which perfectly addresses the question. So he did see the focus (apparently). Item #3 in the OP. 3) I don't see why having a meta-commentary is on its own evidence that it cannot be fixed. That may help communication... someone reading it may say "hey, I didn't see it that way before, but they're right". Again, this criterion only makes SO less useful.
    – sancho.s ReinstateMonicaCellio
    Commented Apr 3, 2022 at 10:56
  • @Ramhound - 4) The same comment as #3 applies even if the only edit were adding a meta commentary... it may help communication. Perhaps it is less likely that this case leads to a better agreement among the parties, but the strict criterion described looks too narrow to me. 5) About SU/SE... good point. Should I move it?
    – sancho.s ReinstateMonicaCellio
    Commented Apr 3, 2022 at 10:58
  • That does not change the fact the question was closed, and the way to get it open, is to remove the meta commentary. Additional, it does change the fact, this question really is a meta stack exchange question.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Apr 3, 2022 at 14:43
  • @Ramhound - Did both things.
    – sancho.s ReinstateMonicaCellio
    Commented Apr 4, 2022 at 4:35
  • Your most current revision in the reopen queue still had meta commentary. I voted to keep your question closed for that reason.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Apr 4, 2022 at 11:38
  • I removed the meta-commentary and fixed an obvious grammatical error you had, even if the meta commentary was hidden, it DID NOT belong in the question.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Apr 5, 2022 at 4:08
  • @Ramhound - So hidden text also counts? I sometimes use it as a note to myself, or to keep something I think I might use in edits. I find it very useful, and not perturbing in any way SO... but perhaps it does.
    – sancho.s ReinstateMonicaCellio
    Commented Apr 5, 2022 at 10:29

0

Reset to default

Browse other questions tagged .