9

Recently we've had our stellar diamond moderators step in the gap and close questions on the site which shouldn't be kept open for too long (mostly identification requests).

It got me to thinking - if we didn't have those diamond mods around, we wouldn't be able to get those kinds of questions closed fairly quickly.

Does anyone think that we should consider asking Stack Exchange to lower the close vote threshold to 3?

2
  • 1
    for sure, if it's gonna get problematic content out of sight faster, and this is one of the more efficient ways to do it, let's implement it. If there are better ideas however, please post them in the answers for everyone to consider
    – Hakase
    Jan 6 '20 at 4:15
  • 2
    Yes, I agree we should. Anime and Manga SE is still bombarded by identification and opinion-based questions. Sometimes, it takes days before these questions even get closed.
    – W. Are
    Jan 6 '20 at 7:49
10

Some of you may have noticed the Meta Stack Exchange post - Testing three-vote close and reopen on 13 network sites (it's linked in the featured on meta sidebar) - we've finally got this project under way and Anime & Manga is one of the sites we'll be running the test on.

Starting tomorrow, I'll be changing the site setting and closing and reopening will require only three votes. This test will run for 45 days and will be turned back to five votes to close and reopen while I review the data from the 13 sites. After we've seen the impact, I'll be posting results and, if there aren't negative impacts, we will change the setting to three permanently.

A few weeks into this, I'll be posting a question here on meta to ask for your thoughts about this change, so you will have an opportunity to discuss the impact.

Thank you so much for your patience while we got this prioritized and scheduled. There's a lot more information in the MSE post, so please review it.


On a more specific note, I did read your answer to my MSE post and I understand your concern. This is on me. When I started this project in earnest in 2019, we were preparing to start running tests in January - and by "we" I mean Shog and I - he's written all of my queries and I'm a novice at best with SQL. And, well... he got fired - and I felt a little stuck because I wasn't sure how to pick up without his help.

Part of the delay in this is just practicality - we had only four CMs and couldn't keep up - and that's why we're finally able to get this out now - it was both prioritized and I felt like I could finally actually do it well. Because that's really important to me and I need to be able to focus on it and really analyze the data I get.

If the mods on this site are closing 98% of all questions that get closed and - even then - y'all still only have 66% of questions that get nominated to close actually handled (these are real stats for y'all)... then there is a big problem and I'm not even sure whether this will fix it. The mods here are doing a lot of great work but if there isn't a community here participating in reviewing, there's a lot bigger problem than this can fix and, well, while I hope this does help a lot, there may be more efficacious options.

One of the other reasons for the delay is that we did roll out changes to review in an attempt to get more people involved, help them understand how to review and make reviewing easier - and we didn't want to be testing two changes simultaneously.

As to not responding, that's on my plate, too. I should have - and a comment I left on the question on MSE specifically recognizes that I've been remiss in keeping people updated, though I did write an update answer on MSE to let people know what was going on in December, that wasn't necessarily visible to individual sites. I apologize for that. I struggle with giving people "bad" news ("this project is delayed") - but I'll try to work on that, too.

So, I'm very sorry about the delay in this project and the silence on my part - it is important and I want to find ways to ensure that close-worthy questions are getting closed on sites without putting a ton of pressure on moderators to do all the work.

2
  • There's a lot I want to say about the delay in communication or the priorities of the team, but I don't think it'd do much good at this point. There's a desire to thank you for the rollout, but there's already a bigger problem afoot with the community and its moderation. At this point I hope that the community would be motivated enough to partake in this, since I would've imagined that the time that the broader "get this on CM's radar" initiative was probably before the few of us who were here decided to move on and who would've been targeted by this effort.
    – Makoto
    May 9 at 23:00
  • (And yes, it took me this long to think of a response that I hope was restrained enough. I'm hoping it's restrained, at least.)
    – Makoto
    May 9 at 23:01
5

I don't have any privs here, but here's my general thoughts on the question

How many active reviewers are there?

If there's not a lot of active reviewers, that's a good reason to lower the threshold. The close review stats page seems to indicate there's not a lot of reviewing going on. The fact that there's two moderators in the top 10 also doesn't bode well (it typically means that moderators are cleaning out the queues because the community isn't voting enough).

How many close votes age away?

A problem I noticed on DIY.SE was that a lot of votes weren't being done to completion. A lot of times, it was due to votes aging away. If this is a persistent problem, it means the voting culture needs some help.

Is closure timely?

A major reason we close questions is so you don't wind up with terrible questions you can't get rid of. Once a question gets answers, it often starts garnering upvotes and the whole process breaks down.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .