Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

A key part of that problem is that you can't vote against closure. Only after a question has accrued sufficient votes to close it can you start voting to open it again; it's a ratcheting flip-flop.

But it appears Jeff is oddly against this issue:

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/915/can-we-have-the-...

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/125/how-about-a-vote...

Heavily outvoted by the community, he persists in obduracy.



I'm not sure I like the present system or proposed solution. You'd then have four ways to vote:

    * Vote question up
    * Vote question down
    * Vote to close
    * Vote not to close
Why not simply close based on downvotes? Or remove downvotes and close algorithmically based on "flags", like we have on HN.


The ratcheting flip-flop is the best-case scenario for when a question is popular enough for some people to stick around and keep it open. Most of the time, closure is a death warrant for a question. I've seen some real "diamonds in the rough" closed because of this.


Interesting. I kept seeing some topics opened, closed, only to be reopened again. I thought the admins couldn't make up their minds.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: