Before the recent change in close/on hold reasons, certain close reasons (e.g. "off topic") would carry an automatic downvote (what I call a "fault" close). Others such as "duplicate," would not (the OP isn't penalized for not realizing his question is a a duplicate, meaning "no fault."  With the new close reasons, which are the "fault" closes (automatic downvote), and which aren't?
124294
Right now,  carry automatic downvotes.  The  for this was largely to enforce specific quality bans in part because people were not down voting questions. Now that question down votes are free on questions and it seems to be pretty commonplace for question quality bans to trigger, even without the automatic votes from closure, and we have completely revamped the closure system. Is it time to reevaluate whether or not these automatic votes are still a good idea?  What benefits do the automatic votes provide and have they effectively run their course?
35465
When voting to close a question, it's possible for users to vote for any close reason, even if others have voted for different reasons. However, in the end, once the question reaches five close votes for any reason, only one of those reasons can be displayed.  How does the system determine which one close reason to display, given the votes made by users?
26454
In seeing some of the potential solutions and problems related to this  I noticed something. Why are closed questions allowed to obtain more reputation for a user?   So my recommendation(even though it's a pain to implement probably) is this(note, this includes all close votes except for migrations)   When a question gets closed, only the question gets retroactively marked as community wiki. By retroactive, I mean all upvotes on the question before closing are undone.  Also note, downvotes are kept. This means a closed question with downvotes will always have a net negative reputation.  When a question is reopened, it gets retroactively assigned to the user instead of the community user. This just undoes point #1.   Details:  Point one solves these problems:   User asks a popular, but "bikeshed" subjective question. Even if the question is closed an hour later, they may accumulate 15 upvotes. With this system, those 15 upvotes won't matter. Downvotes are kept to the user while being closed. This deals with low-quality questions that people should get a negative reputation affect for. However, after being closed downvotes should be assigned to the community user to prevent the downward spiral affect, especially since pitty upvotes won't be able to save them. People can still upvote as a method of suggesting that a question should be reopened. The upvote just won't count for the author of the question until reopened.   I see no actual point in closed questions being capable of acquiring reputation, except for maybe duplicates(but only barely).  So, here is my feature-request. :)  Also, to solve the  you could apply the same thing toward the answers of closed questions. This isn't a big problem with any close reasons other than Not A Real Question, where many low quality answers fall but with users who try to answer them anyway with the small amount of information given. I think those users should not be discredited for their attempts.
65462
I don't see why users (even those with high rep) should be able to see the number of close-votes for any questions they did not post. I've observed that the mere presence of a close vote can trigger more, and -- quite often -- this biases things in favor of the person who cast the first vote, which makes all the difference in edge cases.  Mind you, it affects me just as much as anybody -- there have definitely been some cases where I would not have voted had I not seen that others were closing a question. I try my best, of course, but we're all human...  The only exception, in my opinion, is when closing as a duplicate. But even then, it doesn't matter how many votes there are -- instead, the site can simply put the top-suggested votes at the top of the list, without mentioning which ones were chosen by people and which ones weren't.  So really, I don't see why the number of close votes should be visible to anyone other than the OP -- and so I'm proposing we remove the display of pending close votes for anyone who doesn't need to see it.
56259
Possible Duplicate:                When a question is closed! It will highlight the reason for closure (ie, based on the maximum number of votes for a category is received)  considering the example below: if a question has received two close votes for being off-topic, two as well for not being a not-a-real question. Also someONE found it to be too-localized!  With total number of 5 close votes, question will be closed. But since both the number of off-topic votes and not-a-real question votes are equal ie 2. What will be the reason highlighted on the question after getting closed. Does it depend on the reputation of close voters?  like if (total reputation of close voters for off-topic &gt; total reputation of close voters for not-real-question) then close question as off-topic  This scenario ideally shouldn't happen! But if it happens then how it is handled and is this how it works?     two users have voted for off-topic and two for not-real .. the last   person chose too-localized. Then what will be the close reason?
42516
I just successfully added my Close vote to a question on Stack Overflow that had already been deleted by the author.  The question can be found .        The only purpose I see for such functionality is perhaps to stop someone from escaping the initial surge of wrath from critics, then subsequently undeleting their question.  And that would be a pretty strange thing to guard against.  It seems far more likely that this is an oddity that was overlooked.  So I'm just curious - is voting to close a deleted question a bug, or is it ?  If by design, what is the rationale behind it?
52359
Possible Duplicate:          The FAQ specifies that:     Use your downvotes whenever you encounter an egregiously sloppy, no-effort-expended post, or an answer that is clearly and perhaps dangerously incorrect.   But if I find a correct question, closed (or not yet) as duplicate, is downvote a correct behavior for Stack&nbsp;Overflow policy?
110423
This question on Server Fault was just bumped to the front page like any other question that has no upvoted answers and is a bit old. The thing is, it's been locked. Shouldn't these be treated as "closed" questions and not be poked to the front page? The  says that locked and closed questions aren't bumped.  As of today, the question has been bumped every month, and received its last bump 2 days ago.  The whole point of bumping these posts is to get new contributions, but a locked post can't have any content added or revised.      Edited: as of today, 2017-03-30, the same question is yet again bumped:
114330
Background: when I saw , it had 2 votes to close as duplicate, but it didn't have the usual automatically-generated comment. What happened was that  and deleted the automatic comment.  In this situation, when a second closer comes along and also decides to close as duplicate, a new comment should be generated. Otherwise the potential duplicate isn't visible until the question is closed, which often means wasted time as people redo the work of answering the question.
3144
Testing the app, I noticed the title does not specify if a question is "On Hold" ... I haven't checked specifically, but would assume it doesn't specify as "Duplicate" either ... Or am I missing it somewhere? Is it not in the title but located/displayed some other way? If it is, this could be very confusing to users. If it isn't there, it's definitely confusing to users :-)  Using: Version 1.0.1.125 on iPad3 with iOS8
104985
Yesterday, a sudden loss of 6 rep led me to discover that my top 3 meta questions were downvoted:        Now, a sudden gain of 6 rep leads me to believe that the downvotes were reversed... but it looks like they were undone manually, rather than reversed by the vote fraud script:    How were yesterday's downvotes undone today? I haven't edited my questions since receiving the downvotes. Shouldn't they have been locked in after only 5 minutes?
15946
Since it's currently impossible to delete a "vote to close",* when I see a poorly asked question, should I immediately vote to close, or should I comment, and give the OP a chance to improve his question?  Waiting increases the chance that I'll forget, and never vote to close, potentially leading to a cluttered site.  Voting to close immediately increases the chance that the question will be closed, and the author will be forced to re-post his (hopefully improved) question, which leads to a cluttered site. :)  *It is now possible to , but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of this question.
23802
was recently closed (partly thanks to my own vote to close it.) While it was closed as being "off topic", I'm not sure that's actually the case. The poster asked about resources for understanding the facade and decorator patterns. While it's not a perfect fit for SO (e.g. there was no actual code) the reason I personally voted to close was my disdain for the complete lack of research effort made. (A simple Google search turns up a ton of resources.)  I know that downvoting is intended to mark questions that show little research effort (as pointed out in ) but should be a strong enough reason to close?  I find myself voting to close for this reason relatively frequently, so I suppose my two questions are:   Is this a legitimate reason to vote to close, or should I just be downvoting these questions? If it is a legitimate reason, can it be added to the list of reasons for closure? I don't think it fits comfortably in any of the current reasons.
68089
Currently, when the original poster of the question votes to close a question, the close vote is attributed to the Community user, which can lead to confusion on who actually voted to close the question.    Yes, it does say that the question author authorized a pending duplicate vote and whatnot, but that isn't indicated anywhere except for in a hidden thing that most won't look to see.  Like nicael , there really isn't a point to hiding that the question author approved a duplicate vote. Even if they didn't at the most specific level vote to close, it's makes for a better user experience to have something more like this:
93731
I just got  for close votes. But it says me that the question is already on hold.         I realized that this it an audit. And I clicked on Close. Hurrah! I passed an audit without any efforts!        Can we fix this? Please.  Note: We may say that this it a duplicate to this question: . But that question is for First Posts while this question is for Close vote.
1851
That question of mine was closed a long time ago (relatively, to me at least).  However, from time to time I still get downvotes for it.  That got me thinking: is there any reason to still downvote closed questions?
39382
When a question is initially flagged as a duplicate, there is a comment. If the duplicate flag gets enough votes, the question is closed as a duplicate, and the comment is deleted.  Does upvoting the duplicate comment count as a close vote? Does it do anything at all?