This is almost a verbatim copy of a question with the same title on Home Improvement Meta. It goes to the point and I don't see anything to be improved or expanded.

This has been tinkered with on Stack Overflow and several Stack Exchange sites. SO has now gone to 3 permanently and Shog9 commented:

Other sites can have whatever threshold is most appropriate for them

We are "other sites".

There's only a handful or so regular reviewers in general (of the non-mod variety anyways), and closure tends to be a pain: it takes days to have a question closed. Lowering the threshold to 3 would ensure faster community response time.

In short, let's set the close and reopen voting thresholds at 3 instead of 5. As this is a feature request, you can use the upvote and downvote to show that you are for or against the proposal.

As read in CM Catija's answer to Is it possible to reduce the number of close votes needed for certain types of close reasons? in Japanese.SE, this change is not straight-foward:

The number has to be the same for every close reason but we can change the number required to close a question to 3 or 1. We've run a couple of tests on other sites and are willing to test it on others. If you'd like to run a test here, have a discussion about it and then have one of your moderators ping me once you've made a decision.

I have a handful wanting to test in January already and I'm not sure how many I can do at once but what I generally do is a one-month test and then we compare some stats before and after to see what impact the change had. We're being cautious about making the change permanent from the outset because there's some concerns we want to avoid.

Here's some examples of sites that have tested this out or are asking whether they should on their metas:

  • 3
    (+1) I completely agree with this. I would write an answer, but the answer would look exactly like the question, because the problem could not have been expressed better. – wimi Dec 14 '19 at 10:13
  • 1
    And we recently lost one of our consistent reviewers which did not improve things. – mdewey Dec 14 '19 at 11:56
  • Would this affect votes for reopening? I have rarely seen a need to vote to reopen, but sometimes it does happen. – aparente001 Dec 15 '19 at 16:22
  • 2
    @aparente001 on SO the threshold for both closing and reopening was lowered to 3. See the announcement and the experiment from which this was concluded. – fedorqui 'SO stop harming' Dec 16 '19 at 7:02
  • Zero downvotes -- are we done? Can this be finalized? The more I think about this the more in favor I am, I don't know why this never occurred to me. – aparente001 Dec 17 '19 at 8:31
  • 2
    @aparente001 let's run this question until the end of the week and then I'll contact the CM team to change the threshold value of this site. – Charlie Dec 17 '19 at 9:06
  • 1
    @aparente001 such initiatives should be handed to the CM with quite a lot of support from the community, as well as some analysis. Just 4 upvotes seems a bit too little to me, so I would wait to have both more feedback and upvotes. – fedorqui 'SO stop harming' Dec 18 '19 at 10:35
  • @fedorqui - It's hard to get a lot of votes and comments at Meta. This seems like a bit of a Catch-22. If we had more meta-type participation we wouldn't have such a hard time getting the close votes. – aparente001 Dec 18 '19 at 17:35
  • I agree with Aparente001 and I have to say that my reasoning for not wanting to lower the threshold yet is that we could very well do so for Meta proposals (and it seems we are uncomfortable about it) and approve with less (up)votes. We have complained for a long time about participation, and the main excuse was that we were a beta site. Now, no longer beta, we don't address participation, we just let fewer users (the few ones who care enough to get involved, in any case) decide about the management of these matters. If that's how we want to roll, fine, but let's be aware about it. – Diego Dec 19 '19 at 17:56
  • @charlie and fedorqui et al. - related Meta.SE post: meta.stackexchange.com/q/341810/287826 – aparente001 Jan 10 '20 at 7:59
  • What is the status on this? Now that we have one close vote reviewer less, the average close time might increase... – wimi Oct 21 '20 at 7:25
  • @wimi it should be on CM's queue, so I don't know. The same request in other sites didn't have an outcome yet. – fedorqui 'SO stop harming' Oct 21 '20 at 7:33
  • 1
    @fedorqui'SOstopharming' no news... I have asked again, but I do not expect great surprises... – wimi Apr 7 at 6:45
  • 1
    @fedorqui'SOstopharming' here are some news: meta.stackexchange.com/q/364007/643262 . Unfortunately, Spanish.SE was not chosen as one of the 12 sites in which three-vote closure will be initially tested. We will have to wait for the results of those tests... – wimi May 3 at 22:04


Testing of three-vote closing is starting on Thursday, May 6 on 12 SE sites, and we are not one of those sites. The test will last for 45 days, and then the results will be analyzed. After that (which will also take some time), hopefully we will get a chance.

The close vote count threshold has now been requested to be lowered to the CMs. The CM Catija has added Spanish.SE to the list of sites in which this will be tested.

Por mi parte de acuerdo con la pregunta y con los comentarios. Las colas de revisión se están eternizando, los flags de posts duplicados, offtopic o de poca calidad nunca llegan a nada, y al final como único moderador actualmente tengo que llegar yo para cerrarlos (o no) cuando eso debería ser tarea de la comunidad. Y no digo nada de los votos para reabrir, que incluso en el apogeo de actividad del sitio era misión casi imposible. Bajar el límite a 3 aceleraría las cosas y me daría menos trabajo, que esto de ser moderador único no es fácil (tampoco imposible porque esta es una comunidad tranquila, pero sus cosas tiene).

Por favor, nótese que estoy dando mi punto de vista, no quiero llegar yo a imponer nada.

  • Para que conste en acta (y evitar futuras quejas), esta respuesta ha recibido 5 votos, que es el umbral que en el pasado nos hemos marcado para aceptar propuestas de meta (debido a que por la escasa participación a veces no se sabe si la gente no apoya una propuesta o no ha tenido tiempo para verla/considerarla). Tras el edit, alguien ha debido de retirar su voto (ya que no puedes retractar tu voto de un post, salvo que el post reciba edits). Esta no es solo la respuesta más votada, sino que también cumplió las condiciones acordadas por la comunidad para considerarla un cambio consensuado. – Diego Jan 10 '20 at 16:42
  • @Diego creo que en el caso de las feature-request lo relevante es la cantidad de votos que tenga la pregunta en sí, pues es la que plantea el cambio. Cambiaría si las respuestas perfilaran la propuesta o definieran nuevos elementos, pero no creo que sea el caso aquí. Por ello +9/-0 creo que es un éxito para nuestro sitio, creo que pocas propuestas (si no ninguna) habían obtenido tanto apoyo. Dicho lo cual, evidentemente también es relevante el apoyo a esta respuesta, tanto porque es apoyo del equipo de moderación como porque da más empaque a la propuesta – fedorqui 'SO stop harming' Jan 10 '20 at 19:50
  • @fedorqui'SOstopharming' gracias por ese update. Por alguna razón yo pensaba que ya estaba hecho e incluso iba a preguntar si ha mejorado ya un poco la cosa en las colas de revisión... – Diego Feb 11 '20 at 18:59
  • @Diego le pregunté a Charlie y me explicó eso en la Tertulia, a ver cuándo los CM le contestan indicando el pistoletazo de salida de todo el experimento :) – fedorqui 'SO stop harming' Feb 12 '20 at 6:18
  • 1
    Acabo de poner el quinto voto de cierre para pregunta basica de redes routers y modems y (como en otras ocasiones) me sorprende que el límite no sea todavía 3 votos. No es que esté sorprendido ante la lentitud por parte de SE en atender la petición y realizar el cambio (o denegar la petición), pero después de invertir tanto tiempo y esfuerzo (por parte de nuestra comunidad) en animar a la participación en Meta, el que haya esta aparente falta de continuidad entre la propuesta de una idea o solución a un problema y su realización es frustrante. – Diego May 5 '20 at 12:10

Let me make a further suggestion.

Since many of us who post on this stack are scientists of one variety or another we should really do an experiment before making a permanent change. I propose that we ask for something like the experiment which ran on StackOverflow with similar metrics and then look and see what happened. I will repeat the link here https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/391832/we-re-lowering-the-close-reopen-vote-threshold-from-5-to-3-for-good although it is also in the original question which prompted this thread.

  • Agreed. In fact today I updated the question with the reasoning that the CM Catija provided in another Meta: apparently they run this experiment before lowering the threshold. Which makes sense and puts some numbers before a final decision is made, which is something we indeed need :D – fedorqui 'SO stop harming' Dec 20 '19 at 15:06
  • I appreciate your sharing that link. I took a look and here's what I think. There is an answer there that says, "For politics, skeptics, and similar sites often dealing with subjective topics this will probably have a bad effect.. even with the 5-vote requirement there are too many ideologically motivated closings, when people want to remove legitimate questions because they think they (or the answers given) don't support their views... and therefore there are lots of generic "not clear what you're asking" close votes even if the OP explained exceptionally when what is being asked." (cont.) – aparente001 Dec 21 '19 at 17:14
  • (link is meta.stackoverflow.com/a/391969/445686.) Well, our site doesn't fall into that class. So, I don't think an experiment is needed. – aparente001 Dec 21 '19 at 17:15

Once more, I'm going to play Devil's advocate and disagree with the most popular idea and propose a different option.

I do agree with the assessment and feeling presented in the question. On the other hand, lowering the threshold makes me feel like we go with the easiest option (nothing wrong with that) and we just give up on our efforts of involving more community users in the moderation duties (I should say, in the "extended participation activities", since we have tried unsuccessfully to get more participation in Meta, as well as in the review queues).

While lowering the number of votes could be a potential solution, would we reverse this if the activity in the review queues increases? If the review pace gets even worse, will we lower the threshold again?

My proposal is this:

Let the moderation team participate in Close and Reopen queues.

(Meaning, let's make the mods not wait until it's blatantly obvious that a review queue/contribution became stagnated. Let's take advantage of the fact that the mods are wise, trustworthy and active contributors-reviewers. That's actually why we chose them and why we trusted them with mod superpowers and mod superresponsibilities.)

A long time ago we decided that moderators should stay away from these queues due to two main reasons:

  • We wanted moderators to use their binding vote as little as possible.
  • We wanted to encourage participation in the review queues.

Since not having enough people for reviews has become an issue (I see that close and reopen are specifically mentioned in the question, but not the other review queues) and the current moderation team seems to be formed by top contributors that have a pretty good understanding of what is on-topic and what is not, let's let them participate in these reviews again. Let's trust their binding vote.

I think that this is something that at least we could try for a couple months, see how it works, and if it doesn't or we don't like it we can go with the more upvoted option of lowering the threshold.

  • Just when I was asking JNat to help me lower the threshold you come with another answer and I had to retreat my words... :-D – Charlie Dec 19 '19 at 14:41
  • If we look at the principal contributors to the Close queue we see that there are five who have voted 100+ times one of whom has withdrawn from the site. Realistically if we keep the threshold at five then @Charlie is almost certainly going to have to intervene for anything to get closed. Reducing the threshold to three means he may find we have done the work for him. Since we are currently short of diamond moderators I think we should try to limit what he has to do. – mdewey Dec 19 '19 at 17:17
  • @mdewey Why? Charlie has a binding vote as a mod, which we didn't want him to exercise, so he has stayed away from the queues. His workload would lessen, since he wouldn't need to track stagnant revisions, and he'll be able to intervene as as he does mod duties. We lower the threshold to 3 but then we have a top contributor that we don't let intervene? – Diego Dec 19 '19 at 17:46
  • I have also to ask: what is the main goal here? Reduce the mod workload? Close questions sooner? – Diego Dec 19 '19 at 18:05
  • @Charlie - Do you have a preference? I've always been concerned about the moderator(s) having to shoulder too much of the load. // Diego, this is an interesting point of view. Hmm. I guess that if we abandon the practice you and fedorqui had, of avoiding a hammer-close (I hope I didn't mis-use that term) when possible, in other words, if we go with your proposal here, then questions might routinely get closed with one or two opinions; whereas if we go with fedorqui's proposal, then we would typically be closing with three opinions. I guess I prefer three, over one or two. – aparente001 Dec 19 '19 at 18:19
  • @aparente001 for me it's difficult to say because some recent posts have been closed with 5 votes. So if a post gets 2 or 3 close votes, does that mean that the community is not participating or that the community has divided opinions? Should I then hammer close the question or not? It would be my decision in the end. – Charlie Dec 19 '19 at 18:26
  • @Charlie - How would the following be: for now, we lower it to 3. I am assuming that in January or February there will be an opportunity for the moderating team to be expanded. So, if and when the team is expanded, this could be revisited. // Another thought: maybe the threshold to give people hammers could be petitioned to be lowered. But I doubt this would happen overnight. // My main concern is that I don't want you to burn out while you're waiting for more moderators. You could – aparente001 Dec 19 '19 at 18:33
  • ... burn out by covering the site 24/7 on your own, or you could burn out by having to decide whether to use your hammer, etc. I confess I'm not clear whether we have some high-rep users, or active ex-moderators with a hammer-close ability currently – aparente001 Dec 19 '19 at 18:35
  • 1
    @aparente001 users can get hammer powers if they get a gold medal in any tag, then they can directly close or reopen questions with that tag. But no gold medal has been granted in this site yet. – Charlie Dec 19 '19 at 18:48
  • 1
    Thank you both for this interesting conversation. This is what I aimed to with my answer (sorry that comments are a poor format for this exchange). To complicate matters further, questions could be closed/reponed with 2 votes + Charlie's. Since his vote would be the last vote needed, that would "remove" the binding effect of the vote. How do we feel about that? I will go with whatever the community decides and I will also commit to visit review queues more often, but I can't help feeling that we are treating a symptom (lack of participation), instead of the root cause of the problem. – Diego Dec 19 '19 at 20:21
  • @Charlie note the hammer power is just to close as duplicate. For the rest of close reasons, the gold tag holders do not have a binding vote. – fedorqui 'SO stop harming' Dec 20 '19 at 6:57
  • 2
    @Diego I think it is a key point what you say: what is the main goal here? Reduce the mod workload? Close questions sooner? To me, the goal is to close loops faster, so the feedback to users is given earlier. If a new user needs two days to know how to improve their question, they will probably gone. If we reduce it to few hours, we still have time. Also, closing fast prevents from getting bad answers. – fedorqui 'SO stop harming' Dec 20 '19 at 11:32
  • @fedorqui I fully agree with that, but maybe new users are just going to get sooner a message saying "your question doesn't meet our standards" and no further help about how to improve it. As you know, in the Lista de comentarios útiles para el sitio we have some suggestions to remind users to try to be kind and helpful instead of snarky or indifferent to newcommers. I think we can/should give feedback to those users via comment while their question is in the queue. I don't think they get much help or guidance once their posts get a flag. – Diego Dec 20 '19 at 15:59
  • My two cents: I think we should do the three things that have been mentioned in parallel: close more quickly (I'm on record being impatient about this!), give people gentle but helpful feedback (I do that a lot, and I try to tailor my feedback to their level of savviness about the workings of the site), and work to increase participation. Actually, I think that a collaborative process, working with new participants to help them get the help they seek, is an important part of what can be done to increase participation. (In general, I'd like to see more dupe closures.) – aparente001 Dec 21 '19 at 17:19
  • @Charlie - Is this proposal still in limbo? Could we have a status report when you have a moment? – aparente001 Dec 30 '19 at 3:38

You must log in to answer this question.

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