Why can't we list out the most close voted questions first in the review queue? While reviewing duplicate questions I noticed that the least close voted questions (1 close vote) and the most close voted questions (4 close votes) get listed in no apparent order.  Why can't we sort the questions, starting from most close voted to least close voted? It would help to close questions sooner.
43777
The Close-Vote queue is large and growing. I searched for definitive information on how that queue is sorted for reviewers, and the nearest I could find is that it is randomized - but that post was some years old.  Would it be possible to sort on order of votes already received? That is, all questions with 4 votes to close are surfaced first (in random order) to reviewers? Questions with 3 votes would come up before ones with 2, etc. In that manner a given question gets out of 'will it close?' limbo faster.   This feature request would, in my opinion, be supportable if the majority of reviewer votes were going to single-vote questions. I cannot (I think) actually find these numbers. If this is the case, the majority of the work is going to an ever-increasing queue, and proportionally fewer votes are being resolved.  Note there are other distributions that could help get in this direction without being a strict ordering, like weighting the chance a given question is surfaced to a reviewer by the number of votes. However, for discussion purposes I thought I'd keep it simple.  Usual apology if this has actually been addressed. Search is sad-making.
25717
I was in the Low Quality Review queue, and the following review confused me:    It's showing eight "Close votes", which should be more than enough to close a question.  I checked the question's , and it wasn't somehow closed, then re-opened in the middle of the review.  So I then checked on each of the users, and noticed that the majority of them are under 3000 reputation, meaning they can only "Recommend Close".    However, all reviews are simply showing as "Close", which is extremely confusing.  Is this a bug, or possibly an undocumented change related to ?    Another recent example:
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?
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.
32212
When a question has pending close votes, the system now adds a banner indicating that the question might be a duplicate:    But the first user to vote still generates a possible duplicate comment:    Those comments were always a hack, just like editing the link into the top of the post. The banner eliminated the need for the latter; can we stop generating those comments too?
33639
I was browsing SO today when I stumbled across these two questions:    So, both questions are closed.*  The problem?  Each questions is closed as a duplicate of the other; within one minute of each other (they were both closed "8 minutes ago" when I first checked).  Can we add a feature to detect this and prevent a circular Close as Duplicate like this?  Better yet, prevent newer questions than the current one from showing up in the Close as Duplicate list.  *As of 2010/06/17 18:32 UTC the first question is now reopened and the second deleted.
67374
For almost every question there's a list of "related" questions on the right.  How are those questions selected? Is it based solely on tags? Can I do anything if I see a question on the list that is really not related to prevent it from being incorrectly listed?
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
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.
44421
What happened to the close vote option for posts that describe an error or unexpected result but don't include the relevant code or any code!? This is on of the two most popular I use.. What am I supposed to do about questions like  now!?  I just also noticed "must show minimal understanding" is missing as well. After reading over the new option again, I am supposing that the intention is to use "not likely to be helpful for future viewers" for both of these?
86654
I've just seen that the reason of closing is missing in the reviewing page of closing votes.    Is it a temporary error or it's a bug?  EDIT: Seems that only when there are audits the reason is missing.  If I cannot upload image I will make an ASCII art:  Should this question be closed as: ? (less)  ┌────────────┐ ┌─────┐ ┌────┐ ┌────┐                                              │ Leave Open │ │Close│ │Edit│ │Skip│                                              └────────────┘ └─────┘ └────┘ └────┘ Leave Open if this question should not be closed  Close if this question should be closed for any reason; consider leaving an  explanatory comment before voting  Edit if this question could be improved so that it does not need to be closed  Skip if you are not sure and want to go to the next question
87520
Given the ever growing close vote review queue, I think it would help things along if we could streamline the filtering a little more.  At the moment we can filter by tag and by close reason, but off-topic has 7 sub-close-reasons. It may improve the workflow a bit to be able to narrow it down to one or two sub-close-reasons.       There are . About half of all the CV review queue. Supporting data :
59825
I saw a question on Meta that was obviously going to be a duplicate:        And indeed, looking at the "Related" questions list for that question showed a number of duplicates:    Being the good citizen I am, I tried to vote to close (technically Flag as duplicate as I've not got the rep here to vote to close) it as an Exact Duplicate only to find myself falling into a rabbit hole of Closed, Duplicate questions. Is there any way to flag a closed question as such in the Related list?  Mostly because the first one I picked was closed as a duplicate of the second one, which was closed as a duplicate of the one that is now listed as the duplicate/linked answer.   Edit to respond to comment:  I take the point about "not voting to close on title alone", and normally wouldn't, however as the questions had identical titles, and it's pretty clear what they should be asking, I clicked the first one:    which lead to:  which leads to:  - but I'd got bored following links and didn't check that one as the first two were identical, so assumed this was too and didn't want to see how deep the rabbit hole led.   In the related list, there's only one other question in there that is an exact duplicate, but hasn't (currently) been closed as such which is:      Reasoning for highlighting closed questions:  The "Questions with similar titles" does display the closed titles when asking the question, so it should be fairly possible to include.  If there are clearly duplicate titles, then as a reader/reviewer would be helpful to know which ones are already closed as duplicates so you can either:   Use the remaining open questions to focus on which of those is the canonical answer to close this with. Use the closed questions to find the canonical answer (which failed for me with my route of clicks).
54612
I just reviewed 20 items in the close vote queue and got the message     Thank you for reviewing 20 close votes today; come back in 15 hours to continue reviewing.   Normally this is 40 items but .  Can this restriction be removed for Stack Overflow or better the actual queue size be considered since the queue actually contains more items than being displayed?
55414
I voted to close  as a duplicate of  (now deleted, after being closed as off-topic and voted down to -6), so did one other user. The author of both questions deleted the earlier one, and now the later question has gone from two close votes to zero. This makes a certain amount of sense (it's no longer a duplicate), but I can't cast another vote even though my original vote is gone. This is troubling for a few reasons:   The original post was closed as off-topic; I can no longer cast a close vote against the new post as off-topic, even though it's a duplicate of an off-topic question (my close vote is effectively lost) Users can abuse this to swallow a certain number of close votes while spamming the same question into the system (as has just unintentionally happened with the above two questions)   Is this a feature or a bug? Was my close vote supposed to vanish, and afterwards am I supposed to be unable to cast a second close vote for the next-best reason?
114986
I got  in the re-open vote queue.  I noticed it is marked as a duplicate of a question titled Complete and utter nonsense, which was a bit suspicious. So I looked at the bottom of that question and found out it was closed as duplicate by a single user with the new close-vote superpowers.  When going to the duplicate question (the one titled ), I noticed that the same user with the superpowers changed the title of that question and edited the only answer to say If you're reading this, you've posted a question that makes no sense what so ever !.  While this is quite funny, and perhaps both of the questions are low quality and don't make sense (I don't have a gold badge on the relevant tag, so who am I to say), this behavior seems to abuse both the new superpower (since if the new question makes no sense, it shouldn't be closed as a duplicate of a non related question, it should be closed as off topic or unclear) and the edit privileges (what was done to the older question looks like vandalism to me).  This is definitely not a behavior I expect from a 100k+ rep user.  What do you think should be done in this case?
23046
This is a revisit of  that seems to have grown stale without any solid answer. Just recently I was baffled by 's ability to :  In my experience, certain review queues seem to be more inclined to &quot;single-user reviews&quot; (like First Posts and/or Late Answers), while others are more geared to &quot;multi-user reviews&quot; (like Close Votes and/or Suggested Edits). This does not seem to be the case here. The &quot;requirement&quot; for such late, duplicate reviews are questionable and               (         ). Even being able to  (I highly doubt this was an instance of keeping the review window open for more than an hour and only reviewing it post mortem - first post reviews are dealt with far more quickly than most other review queues):   While these examples do not speak to the , it sure seems biased. Something is amiss... Over at  we have a far smaller community, so these situations are far more noticeable.  Edit: The following are all candidates for the above discussion: