9
$\begingroup$

I find it a bit puzzling, regarding site moderation, that questions are put on hold quickly (that's good) but in my experience it takes forever for them to be re-opened. In a recent example from this morning (there have been others before) my question was put on hold within minutes, but although I timely revised it nobody (i.e., not enough people) seemed to bother to re-open it till now, although the original critic has already agreed to the revisions.

So I wonder:

  • Does it take too long on CV for questions to be reopened?
  • Are enough questions reopened?
  • Should there be a better system for reopening questions? (Once a question is on hold fewer people tend to look at it, so questions might not get enough attention anymore although they have been revised.)
$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Specifically, no one intends to be rude here, and if they do that is out of order. Being re-opened is never inevitable: it depends on enough votes to that effect. Also, it's not enough for an OP to think their question is (now) clear. As I write there are 2 votes to re-open 3 hours after editing. That's not in my experience extraordinarily slow at this time of year. I don't understand the question so I can't honestly add a vote that it is clear. It's hard to respond to the general comment that it "takes forever" for questions to be re-opened. Precise data are needed to discuss that claim. $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Aug 3 '17 at 21:16
  • $\begingroup$ @nickcox One of those votes it's actually from me, because I thought I can apply for reopening it somehow. I find rude that the people voting to close do not leave comments why nor feel obliged to come back to re-evaluate the amended version. $\endgroup$ – tomka Aug 3 '17 at 21:20
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Sorry, but I can't agree with you. You need stronger evidence to declare conduct "rude". First, it may be that any or all of those people have revisited the thread and haven't changed their minds. That's their right. Second, I don't think that any contribution here (in this case a vote) obliges people to return to the thread promptly. Busy people sleep, eat, do their day job, attend to family, hobbies, etc. Third, and positively, it's in order for other people to visit and make that vote but apart from yourself only one person has done that in 3 hours. $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Aug 3 '17 at 21:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @NickCox I believe people are clicking quickly on the close / on hold button but do not take time to re-open what they have put on hold. That is of course an impression only. However I believe it would be friendly enough to leave a note why a question is on hold and there should be a system for re-evaluating them. Frankly, the fact you shared that nobody looked at the thread other than myself is evidence supporting my point. Also it may show that nobody else checks out my question because it is on hold. This is an awkward situation given that the reason why it's on hold has been fixed. $\endgroup$ – tomka Aug 3 '17 at 21:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Let me also say that the first person @JuhoKokkala who raised the problem already agreed that it is clearer now and voted to re-open (i.e. this is the second vote). $\endgroup$ – tomka Aug 3 '17 at 21:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "nobody looked at the thread other than myself [=tomka]" I didn't say that and it's not true, if only because I looked at the thread. It's not in contention that there is another vote to re-open but, quite simply, the system requires more. I'll close my remarks: 1. there is nothing obviously unusual to me about your thread except your explicit personal opinion that the process is too slow. 2. whether re-opening happens often enough and fast enough would be a fair question on Meta but there isn't any evidence to discuss this here (but review queues are usually very short on CV). $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Aug 3 '17 at 21:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @NickCox I have made some revisions following our discussion. $\endgroup$ – tomka Aug 3 '17 at 22:14
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Regarding: Should there be a better system for reopening questions? (once a question is on hold fewer people tend to look at it, so questions might not get enough attention anymore although they have been revised) - if a closed question is edited, it gets into reopen review queue and stays there until enough people review it and vote either to reopen or to leave close. So such a system is already in place. $\endgroup$ – amoeba Aug 4 '17 at 8:23
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ See meta.stackexchange.com/a/256071/225179 for details about how the re-open queue @amoeba refers to works. Of particular importance is that only your first edit will place the question into the queue, so make it a good one. Spare your re-open vote (you get only one) for if subsequent edits are required. Of course pinging other users, flagging, or posting on Meta or Ten Fold will get a now-clear question re-opened, but I'd suggest giving the system a bit of time to work. $\endgroup$ – Scortchi Aug 4 '17 at 9:19
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ But it's a good question (+1). Wonder if someone would be interested in collecting some data (meta.stackexchange.com/questions/275921/review-queue-statistics). Something else I've noticed is that a tally of 're-open' votes is visible to the OP, but 'leave closed' votes are invisible - perhaps creating the impression that the question isn't getting attention when in fact people regard it as still unclear. $\endgroup$ – Scortchi Aug 4 '17 at 10:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Scortchi That would be great. The OP needs more feedback on the question after it got closed, in particular if (s)he puts more effort into it! $\endgroup$ – tomka Aug 4 '17 at 10:15
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Scortchi, I've often thought the number of leave open / leave closed votes should be visible to people, especially in the queue. Perhaps I'll investigate that later. I could even put in a feature request on meta.SE, if appropriate. $\endgroup$ – gung Aug 4 '17 at 12:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .