I would like to suggest:

For (all people which vote for closing a question){
  If (the reason for closing is not valid AND
      the question comes to be closed (by the same unfare reason) AND
      the question comes to be reopened after (because the reason for closing was unfare))
      {loses 100 points when the question is reopened, for punishment for a wrong judgement}

Because it's very annoying when someone gets his question closed for a non-sense reason, so the person has to lose a precious time explaining why the question is useful, why there is no sense in closing it and asking for a reopening. That's very very bugging. This way people would think a little before destroying something rather than building something.


3 Answers 3


This has already been proposed and declined, a brief summary of the answers there:

  1. The feature would do more to encourage crap questions than discourage incorrect closures, people would be hesitant to vote to close even the most obvious closeworthy questions in fear of the reputation penalty,
  2. We can't penalise people for a process we don't award them for. People are voting to close to help the site maintain it's quality standards, they don't get any reward for it.

Every asker that had their question closed thought it was interesting, useful and on-topic before asking it. If five people decided it's not, it will take five other people to review the closure, the asker's opinion alone won't overcome the community's.

If you have examples of questions that you feel were wrongly closed, feel free to bring them up on Meta for review. That may sound like a waste of time to you, but we are a community of volunteers, freely volunteering our time to help others. If you are not interested in spending some time improving the question, I'm sorry, but there isn't much we can do about it.


I don't think I've ever seen a question that was closed that couldn't have benefited from an edit to some degree, and that is what closing is for. Closing gives time for a question to be improved without getting as much crap from the community, once it is improved it can and should get reopened.


Please, if you're going to offer up pseudo-code, then at least try to get the formatting close to what we'd expect to see.

May I suggest:

ref pseQuestion question;
int repLoss = 100;
int opScaleFactor = 5;

//nail the buggers / gits for voting to close when
// arbitrary user deemed question worthwhile.
foreach( pseUser user in CloseVoters )
     if( user.CloseVote.Reason != arbitraryUserJudgement.isValid &&
          question.wasClosed( user.CloseVote.Reason ) &&
          question.wasReopened( arbitraryUserJudgement.Unfair(user.CloseVote.Reason) ) 
          user.Reputation -= repLoss;

(apologies in advance for the trailing paranthesis on the if, not my preferred style)

And while we're at it, let's give the closed question's author a chance for some extra retribution.

if( arbitraryUserJudgement.currentUser == question.OP )
     uesr.Reputation -= ( opScaleFactor * repLoss );

Or maybe instead of all of that, we could just focus on editing the questions that can be saved. If you feel that you (or the OP) are spending an excessive amount of time justifying the question, then maybe that's a sign that the question wasn't very well poised to begin with. Here's a good checklist to start with to make sure your questions are good.

FWIW, I think Yannis' answer is pretty spot-on.

The part of your question that I object to is "who decides what is unfair?" 5 close votes by the community is about as close to fair as we're going to get. If you have an alternative approach to deeming what is fair, please bring it up for the community to discuss.

You must log in to answer this question.

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