I have been reviewing close voted questions for a while now. And I am not feeling encouraged to close questions since the numbers are just growing. I feel really responsible for allowing SO to have so many badly formatted questions to be around. May I request that we review our close vote policy to make the following changes   Should need about 2-3 votes utmost to decide if a question is closed If someone with a reputation / minimum gold badges closes a question, it should not need more than one more person to vote to close.   Overall, that would help bring down that 84.1k questions down.  More over, the number of clicks it takes to close a question is too much, 4 now (worst case). I suggest making this a 2 click process. At least until we can get some control on that huge 84.1k questions.  Edit : OR lets just start a campaign to close and bring that huge number down. In short it annoys me to see such a huge number of questions under review :).  Edit 30th Jan 2014 : The number of questions have increased dramatically, there by reducing the quality of our system. I urge the moderators to make closing of questions easier. Today, frankly, the correct reasons are not chosen since its easier to say "Unclear what you are asking", in one click. Its really painful to close. The number of votes needed is REALLY high. I suggest that we systematically make changes.   Blanket close all questions that have 4 votes No reopening of questions, a bad question has under gone 4 mins of review, is bad enough Prioritize 3 votes for all reviewers (line them up earlier) Once we have lesser than 5% questions with 4 votes, reduce the votes needed to 3 votes At this time prioritize 2 vote questions for reviewers.   My point is, it used to be hard to get into SO. Now its easy, and easy to get away, we have 112k questions for review. And I have stopped reviewing, its just too painful.  Edit 1st Feb 2014 : Close votes increase 1k every day 112.6k now. Wake up, SO is the only community that is high quality, lets keep it that day. WAKE UP!!
683
Today, the size of the close-votes queue is 55k questions and growing. Is that a problem?   Which action could be taken to clean it up? It seems to be growing faster than Stack&nbsp;Overflow members are capable to handle it.
74954
The  shows low quality questions and answers.  When out of close votes I'm not sure what to do with the questions. I can still handle the answers fine as there are no limits on the actions I can take.  But for questions one of the actions (close) requires close votes. Sure, I say ok or skip but without the ability to vote for close the process feels a little pointless as I don't have a tool to say "this is bad" anymore and I'm "wasting" time skipping bad things.  Also I'm not sure how the "not sure" votes are recorded and if that degrades the quality of some collected stats when I repeated skip questions that are clearly bad.  One suggestion might be to not show low quality questions to people that are out of close votes.    Some days later: Now that the initial batch of "low quality posts" are done this might not be that big of an issue any more. Even so it happened to me again that I was out of close votes and got a low quality question that I couldn't do anything about.  Another solution might be to allow the casting of a "should be closed" suggestion just to drive down the questions score a little (i.e. counteracting "looks ok" votes) instead of showing the, unusable, option to close.
17244
I (and probably many other people) have accidentally clicked the wrong button in reviews. For example, I just clicked the Leave Open button when I wanted to click Close. I think many people have done this. I think an ability to undo this would be appreciated.
114227
So I received the following message today after clicking the 'Skip' button on a close vote review because I guess I took too long to vote on it and it said it was already closed when I tried to vote.     You have failed too many recent review audits – looks like you might need a break. Come back in 7 days to continue reviewing.   While the point might be valid because I do often fail the close vote review audits (though I'd generally argue that my way of voting was correct, though sometimes I take the fail as a correction), I'm unclear why I received this message after doing something other than fail a review audit. I believe at least something is wrong because of when this message popped up for me.  As a secondary note, my record is much better for other types of reviews and so it does feel unfair that I'm blocked from all reviews when close votes are the only thing I'm arguably not very skilled at.
77078
I experienced it several times, that beginner questions are closed or downvoted. Now I read the FAQ and found the following.  A question is closed if it is        exact duplicate   off topic   not constructive   not a real question   too localized      What about if everyone who votes for a close has to submit a comment why it should be closed? The same with downvoting. Most people vote down without saying explicitely why. It would help the questioner to improve the question.  Neverthless, instead of simply providing an answer to a apparantly simple questions you get downvoted and closed. Why they cannot provide a solution even the question is simple?  Last time I made a Google research and didn't found the information I was looking for. So I started a question here. I got immediately two votes for a close. After trying further I found the solution. But this information will never be seen and found by others, because I deleted the question because of down votes.   In this case you can say that I didn't made enough research, but the question also included a continuation question which also will be never answered.   Why there is no place for beginner questions?   Another time I also asked a questions and searched for hours for an solution. But the solution was so simple that it is embarrassing to post the solution. But I never got a clear answer.
1095
To reopen a closed question,  must agree that the question is suitable for the site and cast votes to reopen the question. But:  How does one actually vote to reopen? Is there a reputation level that you must have before you can see this function? Or do I just leave a comment along the lines of, &quot;I vote to reopen&quot;? What happens if someone with less than 3000 reputation leaves a comment that they wish to vote to reopen? How can one draw attention to their closed questions? Is it done via a posting new question? Or do you edit the closed question?   Related:  For more information, see &quot;&quot; in the .
85307
I think we need a button that says Edit and Close added to the Review Close button options.  Many of these closed posts will be around forever (and should be, closed should not just be a path to deletion), so they need editing.  If I edit it now it goes away, with the only option being a back click to get back to the review, and then click into the post and edit it.  We have an Edit and Reopen button, so this would fit in just fine.
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.
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.
99458
I voted to close a question I thought was too localized, and four days later I see that my close vote has apparently been aged away.  The question only has &lt;100 views right now, so based on , I'm assuming the question was reviewed and people opted to leave it open which then kicked off the close vote aging process.  Is there way for me to see which moronsfellow users thought that the question deserved to stay open without tediously clicking through the close vote queue history?    @Dukeling brings up the important question of motivation for this feature that I didn't address.   First and foremost, I just want to be able to check that the vote-aging system is working correctly (and/or that I understand correctly how it's working). I was surprised that my vote had aged out on a little-viewed question, I want to confirm that this is due to it having been reviewed. Secondly I want to make sure the reviewers are working correctly.  The review queues have had occasional issues with reviewer accuracy. If the particular reviewers seem like reliable folks with a history of correct reviews, I'll assume that I was mistaken about the question and revise my thinking about which questions to close.  If they're all robo-reviewers, I'll flag the question or bring it up on meta to see that it's handled correctly. Finally, philosophically I think that this information should be readily available. I could find the reviews by going through the entire review history, so it's not private information. Making public information less accessible can have its uses, but the outcome that's likely to ruffle feathers is already public; if reviewers opt to close a question, their names are prominently attached to it.  This feature would be more important when the review decision is "Leave Open" as in this case (apparently).  This might lead to more whining, but it seems like only a slight risk.
4193
I'm throwing this feature request out in response to the following two questions.       The current system for suggested edits seems to work perfectly fine in all cases but one: when a user (or group of users) decides to search for possible typos and edit posts en masse. I entirely agree with .        I do not believe it is possible to fix all the issues that might exist in the posts this way.   If you don't have edit privileges, you're causing work for users. Now, nobody minds this, unless you're not fixing all the issues in a   post and it's clear there's no thought going into the process at all.   Editing bumps things to the SO home page. Again, nobody minds and this is by design, but if you're fixing one tiny issue, is that a   reason to bump 100 questions to the home page? I'd say if you're   fixing all the issues with a post - including flagging what should be   flagged, closing what should be closed etc - great. If you're not,   you're bumping a whole lot of stuff...      There are a few more issues to consider, as well.   Even though a single user can (theoretically) suggest an unlimited number of edits, reviewers are limited in the number of edits that they can accept or reject per day. Most behavior on the Stack Exchange network is rate-limited: why shouldn't suggested edits be, as well? A single user's suggested edits can take up a disproportionate amount of the reviewers' time.   I therefore propose placing a limit on the rate of each user's suggested edits. There are a number of ways we could do this.   Limit the number of suggested edits per user per day—to approximately 100? This is a high enough threshold for any reasonable number of daily edits, and besides, after 100 suggested edits get approved there's no rep in it for the editor anyway. Limit the number of suggested edits per user per hour. Limit the number of outstanding (unreviewed) edits per user at any given time.   I personally like the last solution because it would encourage people to spend more time on each suggested edit and it would optimize for the valuable resource that is being spent on each suggested edit: reviewers' time.
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.
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.
37965
Although  is obviously an exceptionally poor question, it still amazes me that 5 people can vote to close and yet not one of them leave a comment to help explain how the poster can improve their question.  I see loads of similar examples where questions from new users are closed and heavily voted down without anyone taking any effort to explain why - not a pleasant experience for new users.  Is there anything that can be done to encourage users to leave comments when voting to close?
58939
Since "" we now have the possibility to retract close votes.   However, as mentioned in "" there is no indication when looking at a question to see if I have already cast such a close vote.  Therefore, could we have a UI improvement to show this? Adding some image with freehand circles to improve visibility.
102189
Consider this Low Quality review:    Based on the answer in , it appears that:     Since questions with close flags are sent to the Close Queue, "Recommend Close" basically ends up punting the question from one queue to another.    In the time since I voted to close the question with a binding vote, six people voted to "Recommend Close", then there was one more binding close vote, then three more Recommend Close votes, before it was finally closed.  All told, it took 14 people to close one question.    After a certain number of "Recommend Close" votes, shouldn't that have some sort of extra effect?  Maybe 3-5 "Recommend Close" counts as one close vote?    Or if "Recommend Close" votes after the first vote aren't going to do anything additional, should people with less than 3000 reputation even see questions with a "Recommend Close" vote in the Low Quality Review Queue?  I guess I'm just confounded by how many people had to review the blasted thing.
68083
A couple of months ago, I suggested a set of badges for . The responses were... mixed. The  can be summarized:  In practice, all this would do is encourage people to ask yet more stupid, worthless questions and we have quite enough of that as it is.  We believe that one of the main things holding back many of our beta sites is that when people have questions they aren't in the habit of asking on the site. Even our flagship site, Stack Overflow, doesn't get many questions from its most knowledgeable users. Perhaps they don't have questions, but far more likely they find answers without needing to ask. Our subtle bias against asking (questions =&gt; clueless) means we lose out on what might be our best source of excellent questions. So we went back to the drawing board and designed a badge set that should not encourage worthless questions:  Asked a well-received question on X separate days, and maintained a positive question record.  In order to award badges, we need to define our terms:  positive question record   (total questions - negative questions - closed - deleted)/total questions &gt;= 0.5  It triple counts a question that is downvoted, closed, and deleted. If you ask one that hits that trifecta, you'll need to ask three better questions to dig yourself out. My own record of asking does not meet the criteria:   (44 - 0 - 12 - 12)/44 = 0.4545...  My  looks a lot better; I had a bunch of questions from the beta period that have been subsequently (and rightfully) deleted. With care, I could bring my record into positive territory with 4 questions. The takeaway is that people can't sweep past indiscretions under the rug by deleting them. And they can recover from a bad start as long as they don't ask more bad questions.  well-received question on X separate days A well-received question is one that's open, not deleted, and has a score &gt; 0. If you ask at least one well-received question in a  and none of your questions that day are deleted, downvoted, or closed, you get one more day of credit toward the badge. Whenever the badge criteria is checked, previous asking days are re-evaluated so that there's an incentive to fix downvoted and/or closed questions. The no-deleted-questions criteria is to prevent people from asking several questions at once and deleting any that aren't upvoted or answered to ask another day. (Though this is a losing strategy in the long run.)   My proposed badge names and levels:  Asked a well-received question on 5 separate days, and maintained a positive question record.  Asked a well-received question on 30 separate days, and maintained a positive question record.  Asked a well-received question on 100 separate days, and maintained a positive question record. In addition, since some outstanding individuals ask on more than 100 days, the gold badge may be awarded multiple times. Over on English, Oishi-sama (now a ) would have a remarkable . Bronze and silver badges are only awarded once. We've decided to hold off on multiple awards for now. See the . Neither the names nor the levels nor even the descriptions are set in stone. Please play around with  to get an idea of how the badge works using our public data. Since the query does not account for deleted questions, it's a bit more generous than the actual badges would be. This version of the badge set should encourage a habit of well-received questions over time and encourage people to fix poorly received questions.  I'd like to express my gratitude to the Parenting community for participating in our .