As I've started reviewing more this question keeps occurring to me. In my judgment there are three ordered categories of question quality: should definitely stay open, should definitely be closed, and lies in the gray area. (I'm sure everyone has the same categories, although the category boundaries will differ.) The first two are obvious, but some decision rule is required for the third. Consider a hypothetical new question that may be somewhat (i.e., a gray area case) "ambiguous, vague, incomplete" (etc.) and may be difficult to answer. My policy in this situation is to give the OP the benefit of the doubt. In addition, I would probably comment and ask for more details to be provided. Now consider such a question that is bumped by the community user (for example, but I might also stumble across it via a different route), it has been around for months and has garnered no answers, or no answers worthy of an upvote. I look at it and wonder if it will ever get a decent answer (it still might). If I tend to fold the grays into the 'stay open' category for new questions, is it reasonable to default to 'close' for old questions? The danger is that the site seems to have an awful lot of such questions floating around, and this process could easily become fairly assertive and fill up the close votes queue in the review system. Another way of putting this is, do we want to eliminate many of the old, inactive questions that seem to be going nowhere (i.e., no answers or no upvoted answers)?