Testing 3-vote Closures & Reopenings and the Value of Closing Questions

Question

Stack Exchange is testing the use of 3-vote close-voting & reopen-voting. This is an important issue that everyone on this Stack should be aware of.

We ended up with five votes to close based on very specific feedback from the early days of closure and the very immature state of review, though it had previously been three. Five became the default network wide and, now that we have so many more sites with different amounts of participation, it's clear that it may not be the right number any more.

What I've come to realize more recently is that we've been relying on moderators - our "exception handlers" far more than we realized to actually close questions on many of our sites - and on some sites, when the moderators aren't doing the bulk of closures, large percentages of questions that end up in the close or reopen queues never get reviewed at all, aging out entirely after a while.

I doubt there's any Stack where users, especially new users, don't perceive close voting as a judgement at best, and an insult at worst. What close voting is, is a necessity. No stack is expected to allow (or should allow) any and every question. Stack Exchange wants to be specifically valuable to the world at large. From SE's perspective, the higher a question's quality, more focused, more relevant, and less duplicative the question, the better.

This is, of course, a bit of a problem on Worldbuilding because we're probably the most creative (aka "least objective") stack in the exchange. It's actually possible here to ask the same question with just enough differences in the base-rules of the querent's world that it justifies leaving the question open. But there is a reality that we need reviews to be processed quickly and with quality (an issue which motivated a request by L.Dutch to improve review quality last November). There is also a reality that questions that don't meet Help Center expectations or obviously meet VTC conditions should be closed quickly with, hopefully, a quick explanation to help the querent improve the question.

But what to do? We have a chance now to let our voices be heard before Stack Exchange makes their final decision. They're running a 45-day test on a dozen or so Stacks. During that time we can voice our opinions about what is right or wrong for our Stack (bearing in mind that, being owned by SE, it may not matter... but it's always better to voice an opinion).

Discussion: If you feel strongly pro-or-con about this, please post your beliefs below. It's a chance to let our moderators know how we feel as they participate at the moderator-level with Stack Exchange. It'd be good if the moderators could also post their observations about how we're doing here on Worldbuilding (a report card, if you will) so we can know if we users are holding up our end of the load. If you feel really strongly about the issue, you can always follow that first link above and post on the SE Meta discussion.

Answer 1

I think 3 closevotes is less suitable for this site than 5.

I think that, because we have more subjective rules, it is more important that there is a broader consensus that a question deserves closure.

Worldbuilding.SE is the most creative Stack site; and that makes the rules the most subjective, the most open to interpretation. That is an unwelcome but inevitable property of this system.

That means that there are going to be more dubious cases here than on other sites. I think that for dubious questions, where there's reasonable arguments for either side, it is important that there be a broader consensus on whatever the final resolution be (closing or not closing). A consensus makes the end result more consistent with the general site culture, and therefore the site experience more reliable. It is more fun to use this place when you have some idea what to expect.

I fear that moving to 3 close-votes will result in quick closing of dubious questions. Some may consider that a benefit, but the problem is that with fewer required close-votes you no longer need to follow the rules as most people understand them - you need to follow the rules so strictly that there are no three people who still disagree. Three people who understood the rules differently, and the question is closed.

Sure, strict adherence to rules is usually better than questionable adherence. But here the rules are by their nature more subjective than on other sites. Reasonable people can have differing interpretations, and it is a matter of chance who is active when. So summed up, moving to 3 close-votes increases the randomness in the site's emergent close-vote behaviour. Askers are more at the whim of how many people with a different interpretation are active at the same time.

Other notes:

• Yes, 3 reopen votes would also allow for quick reopening after a dubious question was improved in edit. But the reopen queue is subject to the same issue of randomness. You only need to have 3 people active at once who agree that the newly edited question does fit the rules; regardless of whether a majority of people agree.
• Yes, there is a possibility that a question sitting in the closing queue receives more answers, and becomes uneditable as a result. The same however is possible to happen when a question ping-pongs from closed to open and back depending on the whims of whoever's active. Therefore I am glad that the Stack Exchange folk have mentioned tracking this metric specifically, to see if my worries here are justified. And although off-topic for this question, I personally think that edits to change a question from close-worthy to open-worthy should be exempt from the rule "no edits that invalidate answers".
• Another (predictable) concern with three close-votes is that it decreases the odds that one of the closers explains themselves in a comment, and may thus lead to more annoying meta questions. This too is a property of the creative nature Worldbuilding.SE: comments are more necessary here than on Stack Overflow, as Elementilas describes well.

Finally, I lack the knowledge of whether there is a need to close questions more quickly than is happening now. I never see more than half a dozen questions in the closing-queue at a time, so I personally do not get that impression, but obviously I cannot tell for sure. I will leave it to actual moderators to determine whether there is a physical need; for now I can only share my concerns. I have read the November post but it seems to be about the quality of reviewing, not the quantity or expediency of closing.

Answer 2

Good Idea

Short Short Version:
Close a questionable query fast, give the new OP some help on how to make it better, reopen the improved query fast. This is what "closing" a query is all about everywhere on SE.

Regular Version:
What I've often seen occurring in WB is a scenario like the following: a good query gets asked but is poorly written (usually "opinion based" or "lacking in sufficient details"); it's such a good topic that it gets upvotes and a couple early answers; one member comes along and sees that there are some problems and VsTC; while others are asking for clarifications in comments, the query gets several more answers (sadly, often by folks who should know better than to answer a query that's in the close queue! (and I know those folks are sometimes me!)); and by the time five close votes are cast, there are 20 upvotes, eight well received but radically different answers, and a green checkmark on one of them.

On the one hand, this demonstrates that we have a vibrant and engaged community in the WB forum. On the other hand, it also demonstrates that we're really not very good at conducting our business in a way consistent with SE. We're the most dysfunctional of all SE forums: simply because the art of geopoesy, the craft of worldbuilding, is ill suited to the SE model.

As JBH rightly points out, our forum is clearly the most creative and I've pointed out before that our query types are almost universally opinion based to a large degree. I think some of this has to do with our propensity to accept any and every question that comes our way regardless of how well or how poorly it's asked. I think the overall quality of our forum would rise not by answering questions any differently, but rather by improving the way we ask questions.

So: I hold that, excluding cases where L. Dutch, Lord of the Instrumentality, wields mighty Mjǫllnir of moderatorial muscle, a three-vote-to-close / three-vote-to-reopen scheme would be pretty ideal for WB.SE:

• we're active enough that three votes would serve to prevent the above scenario from happening too frequently: we can catch the questions that just need a little TLC before they become crazy active
• speeding up the review process will reduce the chances that a question become uneditable because doing so would invalidate a response: not a frequent occurrence, but a sad one
• sometimes good questions in need of alteration languish in the review queue when, to be quite honest, waiting for five VsTC is postponing the inevitable: three is quite a sufficient number for closing and reopening
• reducing the number from 5 to 3 ought to alleviate some of the fears and concerns that users have re real or imagined vindictive closure practices: reducing the required votes would at least appear to lessen the supposed powers that our forum's Illuminati wield
• the turn-around time-frame would also be improved: very frequently, it seems that querents, especially new ones, disappear or abandon their questions during the closure process: I think dragging it out might put a damper on their shinybright new user excitement.

CAVEANT IANITORES:
With a reduced requirement for closure & reopening, I think it will fall to the VTCers to be more clear -- in writing -- what's actually wrong with the question. I've seen the argument "why do I need to write a comment when there's already a rationale for closure" too often turn into an excuse for laziness. Yes, I've been in lazy in the past, too, in this regard! But I find that querents really do respond very positively to a quick note in comments as to what actually needs to be improved. A quick closure process could leave a querent stunned and when no (especially) senior or more knowledgeable users take the time to cushion the blow, that shock can often turn into irrational anger, which leads to snarky comments, insulting edits of the question and rage filled questions here on Meta.

I think we'd need to consider these things as potential sequellae of instituting a shortened closure process. On the positive side, it would also be helpful to remind a shocked querent that quickly editing the question so that it conforms to SE's rigorous rules and regulations will earn them a similarly quick and even less painful reopening process.

Answer 3

5 for close, and mods are not participating in closure, only delete spam and pornograpfy

3 for open

What the point in discussing 3 or 5 if half(won't look for it atm) of q's solo closures of mod? We are ahead of the whole se network for average close votes. (All my subjective observations, not actual stat, which woukd be interesting to see)

I do agree that we subjective/vague place(not so much so if one thinks about it as a place helping people to create better scify using science etc as per tour), but have seen bad questions to be closed in a span of about 25 views, so q's are closed fast if they diserve that.

However 1300 questions with more than 5 answers are closed as of today, and it easy to find ones closed with 4 or more answers from high rep users, and assuming they are not just for free internet points and know how things are rolling, there is no reason for those questions to stay closed then. (And if assume they do not, then we have multiple problems, which we probably do, but it is a different topic)

Another of the reasons, for open votes to be less than close

• and there is about 4+ reasons for that freshness, opinion dauning syndrome, no easy way to find closed q which one answered, ...

If a user is not competent enough to answer the question, then it is easy to misjudge the question, because of not understanding it. I did tests on myself, looking for topics I have little competence or interest and then looking answers later, yeah knowing does not mean be able to prevent such misjudgemts.

Soo we should close q's when most of us agree on general grounds they are trash, and experts in particular fields have to be able to open q's in their field of knowledge more easily, if those q's were misjudged by community due lack of knowledge.

Subjective proportion would be 8 for close, 2 for open, something like that.

But I would not count on that mechanical things/solutions will make a better situation or be a full auto solution for wb, because of enumerous directions and richeness of topics which we handle, or should handle but not doing so well, magic/fantasy fraction still has upper hand.

Closing q's faster is misconception which happens because of bad handling of questions and coping mechanism of mature users with that fast closing and freshbees which need some rep lift.

There is necessity for more decisive actions, smart ones, mods and community together, not like it is atm.

P.S.

And thanks for the post, it nice to know and ripe fruits thay someone keeps an eye on things for ya.

Answer 4

WB.SE needs to be 5 because we are such a multi-disciplinary stack

KeizerHarm already covers most of the reasons why 5 is good in his answer; so, I won't really go into repeating them, but for me the biggest reason why this is true of WB.SE is because WorldBuilding is multi-disciplinary: this makes bad close votes much more common here than in other SEs because we are more likely to vote to close when we do not understand the all of the fields of study that could be applied to a question.

I've personally seen it dozens of times: a question gets 3-4 downvotes really quickly because someone thinks it is opinion based until someone comments explaining why it is not. The it goes on to becoming a very active and well accepted answer without the question needing any revision at all.

For example, you may have a highly intelligent and reputable stack user who specializes in astrophysics and chemistry read a question and vote to close it as an opinion-based only because he is unaware of the mountains of research that someone with a background in anthropology and linguistics would be able to cite to give a definitively factual answer to the question well within the SE guide-lines.

And this is not a one way street either, a person coming from a soft-science background will just as often vote to close because they do not understand just how advanced modern science really is. So, hard-science questions about nanobots, laser weapons, and stun beams are very likely to get a couple of down-votes just because not everyone knows that these are real technologies that exist today.

By reducing to 3 votes, you make questions that are harder to answer much more likely to be closed as opinion based just because a couple of people do not understand the topic well enough to give an informed response.

Answer 5

Extending my comment :

"I doubt there's any Stack where users, especially new users, don't perceive close voting as a judgement at best, and an insult at worst. What close voting is, is a necessity."

Are we presuming that people are happy in their failure at making a good question? Because I know some folks who would definitely presume their good question(s) will be happy here. And, you know, the higher the hopes are, the harder the fall is }i{...

If blanks are as much a way of putting things as words are, any kind of action can -and will- be interpreted.

The issue then is how it is judged. I can hardly think of a closure as a good action. I mean, if people asked to close it, there must be an issue in it, right? An issue that "I" made. However, I thought that my question will be interesting, at least enough to write it down :'(. That leads to a good mental contradiction.

When people are facing their contradictions, they either have to face two choices :

• They take the hit and accept the reality as it is. It will take some efforts, as the person's reality need to reform around this new concept and adapt.
• They block themselves out. It's the easy path, since you don't need to wreck your world and rebuild it.

Truthfully, our intelligence is really diligent when it's about taking lazily the diligence rather than deal with a non-gentle walk, so unless their other goals and desire are more prominent (curiosity, diplomaty, craziness...), they'll take the first option. It might not show up, but it's something that may -and therefore will- pop up.

Note it's not a vote up or down. I actually don't care at all, things will happen with or without me. But I wanted to point that the initial premise makes me raise an eyebrow, which might break down the logic from the bottom up. Just wanted to say that.