When a question is asked, I often find 2-3 votes to close the question after about a minute.
One of the most challenging aspects of fixing a question that is a poor fit for Programmers.SE is when the question gets answers before it gets closed. This makes changing the question to a better one (either the OP taking the feedback of the close reason itself, or others working with the OP) harder because we endeavor to not obsolete answers (and up voted answers are only able to be deleted by mods).
Thus, the quick close votes.
There is no comment stating why the vote was raised with a view to helping the author reword or indeed remove the question completely because it is unsuitable.
When commenting on questions before it is closed this either can lead to additional consternation for the OP - especially in the cases when the close vote doesn't go through. Those comments sometimes hang around for some time and can be confusing to other readers.
If the question is one where the OP is willing to work with it, and the question is one that is not a poor fit (person asking for software libraries, or a code dump, or polling for opinions, etc...) then it is possible to engage the OP in comments and fix the question (or do so wholesale one's self).
However, there have been situations in the past where trying to improve an unclosed question has lead to significant comment, meta, and chat consternation. The OP doesn't see the reason for the change, you see "show 23 more comments" under the question, there's a meta post about people trying to change what is fundamentally a perfect question and the like. I'm going to say this really isn't enjoyable for anyone involved.
There have also been times (I'd have to dig a bit in chat to find an example) where people have admitted they wouldn't have been motivated to fix the question unless it was closed without answers first. The quick closure got them to change it while if it had gotten an answer or wasn't closed it wouldn't have been fixed to be reopened. A good open question is better than a poor, answered, closed one for the site.
Thus, the lest conflict likely process is the close fast / edit / reopen. Other ones are more likely to have conflict and make it harder to end up with a good open question. Commenting about obvious issues (standard close reasons) or doing an Attwoodian transform on a question while answers are coming in makes this all the more difficult to end up with a satisfactory result.
That's why I often close first and then work to fix if it can be fixed. There's also the aspect of the time commitments. One doesn't always have the time available to do a significant edit or work with the OP in comments right at that time - but it still needs to be closed sooner than later if it isn't fixed.