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.
121912
When a user votes to close a question (for whatever reason), it would helpful to receive a notification (in the inbox) when the question is edited (either the text, tags, if it closes then is re-opened) so that the user can then modify his or her vote if the question is properly adjusted.
47275
It looks like this issue has , but it just happened again on Travel.SE. Perhaps this is another corner case? These two questions are closed as duplicates of each other.           I had the last vote on each, although in both cases, my vote was for "Unclear what you're asking", but the weight of votes in both cases were for the duplicate status. So if the existing checks are only in place at the time someone casts a close vote, that would explain how this one got in under the radar. Perhaps another check needs to be done when the question is actually closed, not just when close votes are cast?  And as @gnat points out, low-rep/logged-out users get a Redirect loop when trying to load either question.  NOTE: A moderator has already fixed this particular circular duplicate situation by closing one of the questions with a different close reason.
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?
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.
18465
I've noticed quite a few cases () where people not only vote to close a question, but then also answer said question. At best this is just silly, and at worst it is totally hypocritical and seems almost like rep whoring (since often the closers answers are the only ones that remain to be voted on since no new answers can be given).  If you want to close a question, it makes more sense to simply add a comment if you feel the need to say something. This also leaves the option open for the author of the question to delete it if they want to. If the author realizes they've asked a duplicate, or they want to avoid the onslaught of downvotes that can often accompany a closed question, they should be allowed to delete it. However, if any answers to the question have upvotes, the author can't delete it.  So why do people answer and close? Should we try to crack down on this sort of thing, via either new features, clearly stating it in the FAQs, or just getting the word out through commenting when we see it?  EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm asking this in relation to SO, not MetaSO.
75086
Yesterday, I voted to close a question as a duplicate. Today, I'm curious if the question is still open, but I did not keep a link to that question.  Is there some way to see a list or history of questions that I voted to close? On my activity tab, I can only find "reviews", which does not include questions that I vote on outside of reviews.
40084
I nominated  to be closed as a dup. I see that two other people upvoted my comment, so they might have voted to close it as well. Now, we didn't gather enough votes, and all close votes expired ... and I can't re-vote to close. What is the motivation behind expiring close votes ... especially for close-as-duplicate? Update: Please take into consideration:  Beta Stack Exchange sites have a smaller community, and fewer people with voting privileges Closing as a duplicate is &quot;usually the right thing&quot; IMHO - much less controversial than closing as off topic. After a vote is reset, the original users can't vote again. On a small site, this makes it even harder to get a consensus of five votes.
73860
This is a follow-up from , where there is a discussion about how to handle highly voted, but closed questions.  There are a number of closed questions on Programmers (and I'm sure on other sites, too) that are really close to being good. However, in their present state, they aren't good - they are too subjective, too localized, or just not useful in their current state. However, they can be cleaned up and made into really good questions.  In the post I linked to, I not only picked out one of these questions from Programmers, but also outlined how I would make it better. It's definitely in the same spirit as the original question, but also far more useful. If I were to simply rewrite the original question, most (if not all) of the already provided answers would be invalid or just not make sense.  Currently, the only option for such a massive "reboot" of a question are for it to be reasked, either by someone else or the original asker. If the original asker fixes it, then it would invalidate answers and be up to the answerers to fix their answers or delete them. If the original asker reasks the question as a new question, they get double reputation, unless the original is deleted. If someone else asks the question in the improved manner, they get reputation for a question that isn't theirs, and the original asker gets rep for their "bad" question.  I think that diamond moderators should have the ability to reboot a question. That is, they edit the question and get edit credit, but all existing answers are removed and reputation gained for answers and the question is reset. The question is returned to the front page, like it was just asked. This could also be expanded to allow 10k+ users to vote for a reboot, proposing new wordings as well as a reopen.  Thoughts, problems?
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.
91870
My question is similar to   I believe this would be useful in the scenario if I upvote a question or answer... and the OP changes it where you no longer think it deserves the up vote you have bestowed upon it.  For example, I upvoted an answer, because I thought it was a great answer... then the OP changes it to add a bunch of stuff that I no longer think makes it a great answer. How am I notified of this change?  I know you can rollback use roll back, but how do you know it was edited without getting a notification!?  I haven't seen any meta asking this question, but if one exists please link it and I will remove this question!    EDIT:   @JoshC brings up a valid point... where not everyone has time to go through all the notifications... but why can their be an option under account preferences to turn this feature on or off?
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.
61604
I am a little puzzled over this subject. Why does the number of items in the  is always increasing?  Compared to "suggested edits" - there are fewer items in the close votes queue (less than a 1M  close items vs. over 2M  items in the suggested edits).  So why can't we handle the closed votes reviews?  My observation: While reviewing a suggested edit does not require specific understanding of the post itself (a good assesment can be made based on style and formating), this is not the case for close votes: these reviews require an understanding of the post's subject.  My proposal: It would be nice if when I go to review closed votes the system will automatically filter the posts for me based on my active tags. This way I will be more efficient in reviewing and more encouraged to review more.  EDIT: An after thought (after reading proposed answer and comments): It might be that filtering is not exactly what is required, but rather prioritizing the queue per reiviewer. Each reiviewer will be given posts to review that are "similar" to his active badges with higher probability.  Update: Following , I believe it is highly important to have no backlog at the close votes reviews: This backlog actually makes closing questions on SO quite a random event, leaving many low-quality questions open spamming SO. Is there an effective way to draw the attention of SE team/moderators to this burning issue?
32449
User who cast a binding close vote on a question should be notified when someone comment-reply him/her, even without ever leaving a comment.  This still works fine when I am the only close voter, e.g.  (tried with my sock and deleted the comment already), however this fails to work when I'm not the only close voter, e.g. .  Tested both with a sock account and with the help of another user - no notification.  I noticed it yesterday and hoped it was a temp glitch, but then today I saw by chance , which is important for me to be notified about, since I can reopen the question with single vote.  Just to prove, a screenshot: (click to enlarge, don't want to clutter)        Can this please be fixed?
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.
51857
This is somewhat related to this question:    But relates more to the senario that when a vote has been locked for a particular post, the user can edit the post (by maybe just adding new line or something) and subsequently the user can then change the vote the that was previously locked.  It's a strange feature but essentially renders the functionality of locking votes useless for users with enough points to edit posts.
25750
Prologue:  This is an effort to follow up on  which is marked as a duplicate of  highly voted and status-declined feature request (although they seem to be different, one focusing on the OP and the other on the downvoter).   My New Year's resolution was to downvote more.  So on January 3rd or so, I saw a post that was low quality, and downvoted.  Two days later, I came back to see if it was ready to be deleted or had gotten piled with downvotes, to find it with a significant positive score!  At which point, I noticed that the answer had been significantly improved.  So I retracted my downvote, changed it to an upvote, and immediately resumed my dearth of downvoting again.  I think I have a responsibility to downvote bad posts, despite that oh-so-painful -1 rep penalty.  But if I am also going to have the responsibility to follow up on every downvote I cast, I'm not going to bother. I don't want my downvote to leave a residual penalty on posts that were once low quality, and I am not going to trouble myself to keep checking up on every post I downvoted.  Can a downvoter have an option to be notified when a post they voted down was edited?  I wouldn't make this an automatic thing, because not all downvoters want it, and it isn't applicable to all cases of downvoting (although  that this should be part of the responsibility of a downvoter).  Personally, I would make this a universal toggle on-off option on the user profile page, not a question-by-question option, but I don't have strong feelings about it.
26252
When closing a question in the iOS app as duplicate, the UI is very challenging.  I understand this is not exactly an easy UI to do given the limitations, but still, it's very complex.  One of the worst experiences, though, is when you're voting to close  a question that's already been voted for as duplicate by someone else's vote.  You have to get the duplicate's URL and copy it, and then paste it - there's no automatic link.  When I'm in the app, I usually find cases where I see an obvious duplicate from comments - I'm not doing tons of research, I only vote where it is obvious.  When there's a close vote as duplicate already pending, please give either a list of already chosen URLs, or something similar.  Even if it's only possible when there's only one selection - this would be far better than zero, where you then have to go back to the post, copy the link from comments, and vote again.