We have  that (and why) it is impossible to cast close votes on bountied questions, and this is not about that, but a related issue:  It is possible to post a bounty while the post in question is currently pending review in the close review queue.  A pending review indicates that the question is potentially off-topic, and it is not readily apparent why we should allow bounties to be posted on such questions (while it is indeed clear that closing already bountied questions brings a host of issues related to refunding the bounty with it that only moderators can deal with, as has been discussed before).  Therefore, this is a feature request to disable the ability to bounty a question if the question is currently pending review in the close queue, i.e. if there are close votes cast on it that have not been countered by the required three leave open votes to take it out of the queue.    The  this has been closed as a duplicate of is very close to being a duplicate, but I linked the other question in my very first sentence. This isn't about casting votes on bountied questions, it's about bountying questions with close votes. My proposal is a bit narrower than that of the second question - "pending close review" is a weaker condition than "has close votes", but if you think that this difference is not sufficient to make a seperate feature request, so be it. (In that case, perhaps leave a comment on what I should do with this narrower proposal: Leave it as a comment on the other question? As an answer? Nothing?)
121243
Since , the current solution is to .  Why should mods need to be involved? We don't allow questions with bounties to receive close votes. It should go both ways. For similar reasons,   The answer was that:  The questions that, usually, go through multiple, swift, close/reopen cycles are those that are currently being discussed on meta or new ones, i.e. those that are not yet eligible for a bounty.  It then went into the &quot;flag for mod&quot; answer.  I'm not familiar with other sites, but on Gaming, we close two day old questions all the time.  If a question slips through the cracks and doesn't get closed right away, it is usually days or even weeks before the issue is brought back up. The &quot;flag for mod&quot; answer works, but it seems unnecessarily complicated.  What if a mod isn't around?  It would be much simpler to simply disallow bounties on questions with close votes.  Now that , we don't even have to wait if a question with close votes gets fixed.
87282
After a question get closed, it can be reopened after it was substantially enhanced.   But it may be substantially enhanced while it has one or more close votes, but not closed yet.  I think it should be possible to get the close votes removed in case there is a majority that it should be reopened if it were closed. Some close votes mean a question is only partially closed. Now, few or just one vote could close it. I think partly closing should be reverted if it would be voted to reopen when completely closed.   Is this possible? If not, is it a helpful feature?
26821
I'm trying to go through and provide answers to every unanswered question (search &quot;closed:0 answers:0&quot;), somewhat following the spirit that was blogged about at  .  However, I'm finding this much more difficult than it needs to be, as many of the questions have already been answered without the use of an &quot;answer&quot; - but instead, in the form of a comment by either the OP or another poster. I wouldn't mind reading through and skipping these, as long as there was some appropriate action I could take to at least assist with preventing these questions from being seen again from the same query - either by myself or another SO member.  Is there such an appropriate action?  Should we vote to close?  If so, using what reason? Even if I vote to close, what are the chances that 4 other users will also view the question and also vote to close?  (i.e., will my individual vote even do any good?  Is there any report to show recent close votes, so that others may also review and contribute supporting close votes?) Should we post some sort of an answer - even just something to the effect of &quot;this was already answered by the OP's own comment to his answer (above)&quot;? Would something like this be appropriate to flag for moderator attention, and let the moderators deal with it?  (Or would this be considered too trivial?) Should we rename the question title to something standard that can be used in a search exclusion?  (Maybe &quot;SOLVED:&quot;?)  Basically, how can I help to denote questions as &quot;This question is no longer in active search of an answer - though better answers may still be appreciated.&quot;? I've already reviewed , which was closed as a duplicate of  - but this requires effort on part of a user who may very likely no longer be active. Otherwise, is there something I should be doing to improve my search to filter out these types of questions? I've run across this many times, so I don't consider it to be a rare issue.  However, the last question like this I just ran across, prompting this question, was .  In this case, the question was self-answered by the OP in the form of a comment, this question is the OP's only question, the OP has no other visible activity on SO, and the OP hasn't been seen on SO since he registered and posted the question 5 months ago. Another one I just ran across is .  However, here the &quot;answer&quot; comment was posted by a reputable and recently active SO member.  Should I leave a comment directed at him, asking him to re-post his comment as an answer, or should I post my own answer echoing his comment?  (Or something else?) Yet another is .  Interestingly, the OP actually self-edited the question to include the &quot;SOLVED:&quot; prefix on to the question, instead of posting his resolving comment as an answer (and ideally accepting it) as he was asked to do by another comment.  This brings up another good idea - is there a &quot;standard&quot; we should use to rename the titles on these &quot;resolved but unanswered&quot; posts that could be used as a search exclusion?  (Also added to the above list.)
2932
Let's say I see an answer that should not have been one and I flag it as Not An Answer (NAA). On this site I have plenty of reputation and am able to use the Low Quality (LQ) review queue and cast delete recommendation votes.  Of course raising such a flag on a still virgin post brings it to the LQ review queue, but what happens if I flag a post on the main site that is already in the respective review queue?  Is my flag simply useless in that case? I doubt it would be the same as casting a delete (recommendation) vote from the queue. And when I somehow manage to find that specific post in the review queue later, it's locked down for me, because I have already cast a flag. So was that flag without any effect?  Based on how I currently guess the system works, I proposed two alternative solutions to improve the system in my feature request . They were first part of this question, but I decided to split the question from the feature requests.
36704
I'd like to have this   by animuson confirmed or refuted:      This is unverified, but I remember reading somewhere that an edit can only bump a question into the Reopen Votes queue once. Further edits would not continue bumping it into review. I could not find a source for that, though.   I could not find a source, either. There is an  of how edits send questions into Reopen queue, but it does not address this point.    My reason for asking: I often see  questions with minor formatting edits (made by someone other than OP) in the Reopen queue. The reviewers decide to Leave Closed, since the reason for closure still applies. Suppose that  OP edits the question later; will the edit send it to be reviewed again? If not, this means that minor  edits to an on-hold question reduce the chance of the question being reopened.
32300
are described at length, but don't address bounties.   If I put a bounty on someone else's question, will I be notified of undirected comments? Can people notify me via @-replies even if my only involvement with the question is putting a bounty on it?   If the answer to one or both is no, could we get a new feature putting anyone with a bounty on a question on par with the question's author for the purposes of comment @-replies?  Or, if not, at least add them to the list of @-reply targets to allow messaging them?  This was all prompted by  from DanQ that had a bounty put on it by rabidsnail, presumably because she had the same problem.  Once it showed up on the Featured Questions list, people asked for more information in comments.  DanQ never responded, and may well not have cared about the question by that point.  Presumably rabidsnail cared, but did she get any notification about the comments requesting more info?  (I assume rabidsnail checked in on the question at some point, and obviously didn't add more info then, but maybe she would have had she known sooner.)  There's also the question of proper etiquette when elaborating on a question that's not yours, but that's beyond the scope of this question.
89321
was closed as "Not constructive" a little while ago by CasperOne. I'm not here to argue about the closure; in fact, I'm forced to agree that, as it stands, the question is explicitly a polling question and eligible to be closed for that reason.  I'd like to see it preserved, however; it's got a fair bit of useful in-depth information for ObjC/Cocoa developers on the "singleton" topic.* It's also (possibly more importantly) a great duplicate target -- have a look at the list of linked questions. I want to try to stave off deletion, and hopefully get it reopened.** (I did vote for reopening, but it expired.)  My thought is to edit the question itself into a "constructive" form, but after spending some time pondering how to do so, I'm not crazy about any of the ideas that I've come up with. Essentially they all involve reworking the question to fit the answers:   Rewrite the question so that the accepted answer fits exactly. "I've got this singleton implementation, but I really want the creation to happen earlier in my app's execution. How can I make that happen?" This is artificial and (in my opinion) doesn't make a particularly good question. Make the question still general, but more concrete and focused on the implementation give in the body. "What are the pitfalls associated with this singleton creation procedure? Are there other features that my singleton should have?" This is still skirting the border of discussion->NC, and none of the answers really respond to this exactly. Remove the implementation from the question and just ask for the "best" implementation. This obviously requires coming up with stringent criteria for "best", and, while it would preserve the relationship between the Q and A's best, might not even move it out of NC territory.   I'm looking for suggestions of ways to re-write this so that it can stick around. Alternatively, if you think I should just be advocating for a historical lock, say so.   If you think my basic premise is faulty and don't think the question should be preserved at all, I respectfully request that you just downvote me instead of answering -- I'd prefer not to turn this into an argument about the merits of the question, and I definitely don't want it to become a(nother) "deletionist"/"inclusionist" skirmish (and I am not infrequently ).    *Quite a bit of it unfortunately in comments.  **Historical locking would also be an acceptable solution to me, but it doesn't seem to fit the "controversial" criterion.
109724
clearly belongs elsewhere, but the asker already put a bounty on the question.  If the question is migrated, does the rep get refunded? Does the question continue to be a bounty question on the target site if the user has enough rep? (The asker in the referenced question does not have any associated accounts, but I'm curious about what happens.)  Edit: I just tried to add my own close vote, but apparently you can't when there's an open bounty. However, a mod should still be able to close/migrate/etc.
24986
Sometimes you start a bounty and, since the problem is difficult and people try to reach the bounty, there is higher probability than usual that you get very low quality answers. Sometimes these answers even get some upvotes, thanks to a lot of people viewing it. When the problem is so difficult that no one solves it, the investor does not award the bounty and implicit bounty award takes place. It would be extremely humiliating for the investor to see that one of the bad answers is getting the bounty. Therefore I propose to add the following rule:     Do not implicitly award bounty to an answer that has been downvoted by the investor.   I agree this will not probably happen often, but I have actually seen bad answers taking two or more votes. And I think it doesn't make any sense to award an answer which is bad according to the investor, so I think this case is worth handling.  EDIT: I wouldn't mind because someone will gain rep. What bothers me is that answer which is apparently wrong (possibly have been too quick in the urge to win the bounty) will be marked as bounty winner and thus confuse the visitor, giving the feeling that this is a good solution and the question is answered and OP satisfied.. This would be sick! In case of the accept button you have it under control but this can become really weird especially for 200+ bounty.
111178
Feature Request  *****Make questions unclosable until one hour after they've been asked, with an exception for flagged questions.*****  Question  What reason can you give for a non-abusive but otherwise bad question being closed as soon as possible?  Bonus points for explaining the rationale behind your answer.  Rebuttal  Since closed questions can still show up on various lists, the implication is that deletion is the goal of closing a question.  Since a question can't be deleted for two days (), why the fuss about delaying the closing of a question for a relatively small number of minutes?  The notion that the signal-to-noise ratio on the home page outweighs all other considerations assumes that most people answer questions mainly from there.  I almost never use the home page, preferring the newest or active tabs, or using a tag.  Seeing as the number of closed questions is so low, I'd hesitate to call them "pollution." I would guess that less then 10% of any of the regular lists consists of closed questions.  Also, it seems that it is much easier to close a question than to .  If you disagree, I invite you to put your reasons in an answer or a comment before doing so with a downvote.   is not a duplicate of this because it is asking what the social norm of the community is for voting and mine is a feature request.  For those who claim that keeping a question open pollutes the home page, I would say why don't we request a feature so that questions with even 1 close vote not appear on the main page at all? This solves the so-called 'pollution' issue.  Related question
116305
The close votes count has been bothering me for a while now. I want to make sure I fully understand how the system works and maybe update the FAQ so it's less confusing for people.  The  says we have 50 close votes each day.   I am 6K+ on SO.  I have used 40 votes in the Close Votes queue today but If I go into any question and click on close, it says that I have 12 votes left ( after using 8 close votes directly from question pages earlier today - not the queue )  Does that mean I actually have 60 votes? I am confused.  Is there anywhere to find the rep lvl vs. the amount of close votes allowed per question and review queue?  Something like  1K+ = 20 votes on questions 2K+ = 30 votes on questions 3K+ = 35 votes on questions / 40 in the review queue 4K+ = 40 votes on questions / 50 in the review queue
9228
Requested Feature  I'd like to get a notification when a question that I've voted to close (but isn't closed yet) is edited, so I can review the changed question and retract my close vote if appropriate.  Workings and Rationale  Questions can be voted to be closed for a number of (custom) reasons. Those reasons are requests to the OP to adjust their question — to make them less broad, to make them on topic, to provide a test case, and so on. The OP (or another user) may edit the question to address the issue, but the close votes remain. If another user casts the final vote, the question is closed, even though the original issue was resolved.  To prevent that, the close voters should be notified that the question was edited, so that they can review the edited question and adjust their vote accordingly.  This is for a question in the process of being closed only.  Related Feature Requests   Not a duplicate, since my request is about questions in the process of being closed, while that request is about questions that are already closed. That could notify users years after they've closed the question. That seems unnecessary and we have the regular re-open process to deal with it anyway.   Same request as mine, but (incorrectly, IMHO) closed as a duplicate of the former.
8379
I recently had a  which attracted 1 close vote. I don't know why this vote was cast. If I have not conformed to the site's protocol in any way I am left 'none the wiser'.    Should it be made mandatory for a user to comment on why they are voting to close a question?  If this site is to remain 'clean', part of this will be achieved incorporating processes that educate users.
102895
I feel like someone made a comment as an answer on a question with a bounty just so they could reap the "auto bounty" since they are the only answer on it.   I've flagged the bad/useless answer (as a non-answer) for moderator review but the bounty will be assigned automatically in less than 24hrs and I feel like this guy/gal is just trying to cheat the system.   All I'm trying to do is ensure the bounty simply expires and the guy/gal that was trying to cheat the system by putting down a useless guess doesn't get it.   I've answered my own question (properly) and marked it as the accepted answer, not sure if that makes a difference though in this person still cheating the system since I'm the OP and created the accepted answer.   Here is the post:
19791
I'm still becoming increasingly confused as to why we can't do or see certain things (really, just about anything except for answer a question) from the Review interface.  Today, it's comment voting.  I came across a question in the close queue where another person had already left a comment that clearly described why the question should be closed.  Sometimes, I'll come across other questions where a commenter has also clearly stated what can be done to improve this question so that it will either not be closed or will be a good candidate for getting re-opened.  Often times, in either case, the thread is still worth my close vote because it is either off-topic, low quality, or missing out on some other SE criteria, and it does not contain enough detail for me to feel confident that I can edit it into a good question that is still valuable to its original author.  I personally feel that, in most cases, it is our responsibility to the question author to give them feedback if we are going to down-vote or vote-to-close their question.  Sometimes, the feedback is clear enough in the close reason but this is only visible after the final vote - and even then, only the option selected by the majority is shown.  For instances where I'm giving a down-vote, or I'm one of the first-through-fourth people voting to close, the comment space is my only real option for giving feedback to the author.  Regardless, I feel that providing feedback to the author is essential in helping them to learn how to write better questions, write questions that better fit the StackExchange model, and get answers that are both useful to them and the community.  However, in cases where another person's comment already clearly and thoroughly relates my concerns regarding the post, it's often preferable that I up-vote the existing comment instead of leaving my own, redundant comment to clutter up the thread.  This is not currently an option from within the Review interface.  Interestingly enough, I'm allowed to leave a comment but I'm not allowed to vote on existing comments.  If I want to vote on an existing comment, I need to follow one of two processes - the choice between which is pretty much determined by the first step in each:   Remember that the Review interface will immediately leave the question when I choose an action option. Open one of the links to the question in a new, background tab in my browser. Choose my action for the question.   If necessary, choose the reason for my action. If necessary, select other options (i.e.: duplicate question) to complete the action.  Switch to the question's tab. Vote on the comment. Close the question's tab and go back to reviewing, or doing whatever else I was going to do.   OR   Forget that the Review interface will immediately leave the question when I choose an action option. Choose my action for the question.   If necessary, choose the reason for my action. If necessary, select other options (i.e.: duplicate question) to complete the action.  Open a new browser tab with the main site interface. Search for and open the question. Vote on the comment. Close the question's tab and go back to reviewing, or doing whatever else I was going to do.   Each of these workflows has four steps (italicized), plus associated page loading times, that I would not need to go through if the option to vote on a comment was simply included in the Review interface.  So, for the sake of our time and sanity - the savings of which, I believe, is the primary goal of this interface in the first place - please add or restore this functionality.
6290
Having just  from any of the queues, it was reviewing close votes; however, this audit was flawed in that I didn't even cast a close vote.  Often I press the Close button to preview greater detail and sentiment of the closure, spawning the Why should this question be closed dialog box:    Especially for duplicates, where functionality is solely dependent on spawning this dialog.  From Closing > Duplicate, I can search or view selected duplicates:    Although, I realize general closure reasons are summarized on the page:    This question had 6-upvotes, but seemed very localized referencing subjective query is "taking too long" and even had a sqlfiddle link.  Maybe overly broad regarding performance tuning, the OP was posting like a forum with two answer posts to his own question  and  with one of those answers asking follow-up questions.    Wanting to gauge community response, current closure totals struck my curiosity.  So, I pressed the Close button and boom - oh, the humanity!  I failed, and didn't even cast a close vote.    Votes are not cast until a reason for closure is selected and Vote to Close is pressed.  Taking any review very seriously on this site, it only seems fair that my review quality is tested through actionable steps instead of clicking for more detailed information, leveraging the functional design of the close vote user interface.  Sure, it's complex to seed fake vote totals, and then there's controversy of mindless voting in the majority or people who simply cherry pick 4-vote questions.  Still though, it seems unfair I should hesitate to review further information of vote totals and duplicates before skipping due to the implementation of this audit.
41264
tl;dr Users that have retracted a close vote should be able to vote again on that same question. I don't believe there is any danger in allowing this, provided some controls are in place (see below). Long Version As a 3k+ user, I want to look at a question at any point in time and determine whether it belongs on this site and, if not, state exactly why it doesn't in a close vote. People who write questions are free to edit them at any time. As a result, close votes can become invalid and the new  was introduced as a response to this. While I welcome the new feature, I wonder why we have stuck with the &quot;you can only vote once&quot; paradigm. If I'm monitoring a question to the extent that I withdraw my close vote, why shouldn't I be allowed to vote again if subsequent edits render the question unsuitable? I propose that if you retract your close vote on a question, you should be allowed to vote again. Note that by implementing this feature, one would also be able to change a close vote (by retracting and then selecting a different close reason). To combat willy-nilly vote changing (which may confuse other users), I propose one of the following defences:  An edit must occur between retraction and re-voting. This ensures something has changed in order to make the user want to vote to close again.  A time limit ensures that X minutes must pass between retraction and re-voting.  No specific restrictions are enforced, but the reputation required to re-vote is raised to something higher than 3k. The idea being that more experienced close voters are unlikely to change close reasons lightly. Perhaps this could be a tantalising rep target at 7.5k (to fill the void between 5-10k).   A  was asked previously, but I'm hoping some of my defences listed above will negate the fears listed in the accepted answer. Example Use Case #1 A poor question is raised and the OP receives several close votes and comments. Being a good user, the OP then adjusts the question to meet the quality standards of the site. One or more close-voters retract their vote now that the question is good enough. But wait! A duplicate has now been found, which wasn't spotted originally due to the poor quality of the question. None of the retracting close-voters can vote to close as a duplicate and are forced to leave a comment. Hopefully passing 3K+ users will spot the comment and act accordingly, but unnecessary time is wasted. This question should be on the close queue and heading for death. Example Use Case #2 Commonly on Stack Overflow, a user will present insufficient information to diagnose a problem. Perhaps their code example doesn't compile or they haven't provided definitions of all the referenced methods. I will leave a comment to indicate this and, after a small grace period, will vote to close with &quot;This question appears to be off-topic because it lacks sufficient information to diagnose the problem.&quot;. If the user edits their question and adds the info, I retract my close vote. But I often realise the question should be closed for another reason, e.g. a duplicate or the new(ish) reason: &quot;This question was caused by a problem that can no longer be reproduced or a simple typographical error.&quot;. Example Use Case #3 Perhaps the most common: you find a reasonable duplicate and vote to close. But then... you find the most wonderful, exact duplicate you could imagine. Too late, your vote is cast. You can retract it, but you can't then easily kick the ball rolling on a new closure with the real duplicate. Sure, a comment might cause things to start, but often it doesn't. Flagging for diamond attention isn't appropriate. This can also happen when the OP refutes the original duplicate and provides some extra information that steers you towards a related but different duplicate.