2
$\begingroup$

5 people with 3000 reputation are required to close a question. In perusing this question again, wetcircuit makes a good point; 5 people can close a question where many more than that have positively engaged the question (through views, comments, answers, etc). I would argue that Worldbuilding is uniquely opinion-based among the SE sites making its question closure criteria much murkier.

Possible ways to correct this would be to make 8 voters required to close a question; make 5 + (# of answers) voters required to close a question; make the reputation required to cast a close vote = 3000 + (# of views); etc.

This is, of course, a software engineering problem. As far as I can tell, all SE sites have the same voting and closing requirements, although reputation required to cast a close vote varies with the size of the site (I only need 500 rep to cast close votes on Earth Science.SE).

Is it possible for Worldbuilding, separate from other SE sites, to change its requirements for closing a question? I would like to know if this change can be done by modifying the configuration of the existing site. I assume this change is not worth the developer time to implement from Stack Exchange's standpoint.

Note: this question does not ask should we change our closing requirements. Let us save that for another question after we have determined whether it is even possible

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The number of answers/views/votes a question gets is not in any indicative of if a question is on topic, properly scoped, and not too opinion based. I'm unsure how making closing a question dependent on any of those metrics would help things. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Nov 17 '17 at 14:17
  • $\begingroup$ @sphennings I would consider an answer to a question a vote that it is on-topic. But in any case, lets restrict this question to the technical aspects of feasibility. $\endgroup$ – kingledion Nov 17 '17 at 14:32
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I specifically brought it up as a comment not an answer because it doesn't answer your question. To take it to an extreme if someone asked "How do I list the hidden files in a directory?" on worldbuilding and someone answered "Use ls -a" you would consider that a vote that the question was on topic? Since there is no reputation requirement for answering questions people with no knowledge about the site can start answering questions. I probably had gained ~500 rep before even being aware of VTC or taking the tour. Many early questions I answered were off topic, too broad, or POB. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Nov 17 '17 at 14:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would also suggest making comments explaining the reasons for closing/putting a question mandatory. I believe that will increase the quality of questions and moderation, as well. It will be also easier to make an argument for reopening questions. $\endgroup$ – Olga Nov 17 '17 at 14:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Olga That is a long simmering dispute that is discussed elsewhere: here, and here and here $\endgroup$ – kingledion Nov 17 '17 at 14:57
  • $\begingroup$ @kingledion, most of those discussions deal with downvotes. I am talking about 'moderators' who vote to put on hold/close a question. Considering the biases of this site, just increasing the number of required votes might not be enough. Anyway, it is beyond the scope of your question. But it would be nice to know what theoretically is possible. $\endgroup$ – Olga Nov 17 '17 at 15:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think the solution here is not to raise the technical bar, but to perhaps lower our personal reopen bars. If so many people have positively interacted with the question, why has it not been reopened if we feel it shouldn't have been closed? $\endgroup$ – Separatrix Nov 17 '17 at 15:20
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Earth Science.SE has lower privilege requirements because it's still in beta stage, not because the site is smaller. $\endgroup$ – Vincent Nov 17 '17 at 16:02
  • $\begingroup$ I work as a software developer. Whenever someone asks me if some particular change is possible, my default answer is typically some variation of "sure, with enough effort we can do pretty much anything". The question that should be asked is (a) whether it's doable with a reasonable amount of effort, and (b) whether the powers that be want to spend the corresponding amount of money on getting it done. In this case, unfortunately in a sense, if you're wondering whether it'll be done, consider whether it'll help improve Stack Overflow or the paying customers' experience. Make the case from that angle. $\endgroup$ – user Nov 17 '17 at 16:38
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Olga As an aside, please be careful to differentiate between (moderately-)high-rep users, and moderators, since the latter typically refers to the diamond moderators who, on graduated sites, are elected by the community. Putting questions on hold (ultimately closing them if not reopened) is a moderation privilege, but it is absolutely not reserved for diamond moderators alone (thank goodness!). $\endgroup$ – user Nov 17 '17 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelKjörling, this is precisely the reason why the word moderators was inside quotation marks. And since we are talking about privileges, I am a strong supporter of an idea that greater privileges should come with greater responsibilities. Providing a constructive feedback could be one of those responsibilities. $\endgroup$ – Olga Nov 17 '17 at 16:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @kingledion I edited the title of your question to emphasize that you are asking about technical possibility, not whether we should. Feel free to roll back if you disagree (but if you do, do consider keeping the extra tag). $\endgroup$ – user Nov 17 '17 at 17:59
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelKjörling Thanks for editing the title, and regarding the software part, I am wondering whether the change can be made without software changes. I mean, is there a worldbuilding.config file somewhere where where you can set CLOSE_VOTES_TO_CLOSE=8 or something similarly trivial. $\endgroup$ – kingledion Nov 17 '17 at 18:06
12
$\begingroup$

Yes, it's possible to adjust both the number of people required to close a question and the reputation needed for someone to vote to close in the first place. Note that reopening a question uses the same settings.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ For completeness' sake, note that Adam Lear is a developer for SE. The answer to the question being asked here probably doesn't get much more authoritative than this. $\endgroup$ – user Nov 17 '17 at 18:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is it possible to use dynamic required votes? There's an example in the question: if there's 3 answers, then it would require 5+3 votes to close the question. $\endgroup$ – Vylix Nov 18 '17 at 16:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Vylix No, nothing like that is implemented right now. $\endgroup$ – Adam Lear Nov 18 '17 at 19:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .