Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on I can close my own question by myself, but not reopen it

Parent

I can close my own question by myself, but not reopen it

+7
−0

I was surprised to find that ordinary user privileges allow me to close my own posts unilaterally. It does seem useful; just now I posted something on Linux Systems and realized it needed some fixes to be answerable, and thought that I might not be able to get to it for a while, so I opted to use this option.

It turned out that fixing the issues was not as hard as I feared, and I ended up plowing right into it. But then I was more surprised to find that the "Vote on Holds" ability is needed to reopen the post - and, presumably, even then I would only be casting a vote for it.

Of course, people shouldn't be able to reopen their question if others closed it, since that defeats the purpose of closure. But if I'm allowed to close my own post unilaterally - if that's intended to be a meaningful operation - surely I should have an undo for that?

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

Question reopened (1 comment)
Post
+4
−1

I agree that we probably do want people to be able to self-close,[1] as a way to signal "I know this needs work" that's less destructive than deletion. If we allow that, though, then we should do one of the following:

  • In the close modal where you choose a reason, if you are the author and you do not have the Vote on Holds ability, insert a warning (suggest flagging for mod review when you think it's ready).

  • Allow reopening without the Vote on Holds ability IFF you are the author and yours was the only close vote. (Right now we close on a single vote but we hope to have voting in the future, so plan for that.)

Which of these would be the better approach from the user perspective?


  1. Another answer rightly points out that closing and reworking a question that has answers can invalidate those answers. I agree that we shouldn't allow authors to short-circuit the usual processes in that case. ↩︎

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Approach 2 makes far more sense to me (2 comments)
Approach 2 makes far more sense to me
Karl Knechtel‭ wrote 3 months ago

I think it stands to reason, If you can close your own question unilaterally without Vote on Holds, you should be able to reopen it unilaterally as well - unless the community is also trying to keep the question closed. I think of it as two separate statuses: "closed by OP" and "closed by the community/curators"; a question is closed if either or both of those apply, and OP completely controls the first.

trichoplax‭ wrote 3 months ago

I agree that option 2 is the solution that makes sense long term.

Option 1 would be nice to have in the meantime but only seems worth working on if there is an obstacle to working on option 2.