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
+1
−0

If we let authors close their own questions, it should only be allowed if there are no answers. I wouldn't want to spend time on an answer to have it stuck in a closed question because the OP is planning on changing the question. Once an answer has been written, the question shouldn't change in meaning.

There is another problem with this whole mechanism, though. We don't want posting and then closing questions to be used in place of drafts. Each close and reopen will bump the question. We don't really want to see it until the author is ready to present it to the world. Allowing authors to close their own questions encourages developing questions "in public" instead of making sure they are ready before posting.

All the above considered, I think it's better not to let authors unilaterally close their own questions.

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

1 comment thread

Similar problem with deleting own question (3 comments)
Similar problem with deleting own question
trichoplax‭ wrote 3 months ago

When there are no answers yet, I wonder if preventing a user from closing their own question might lead to them deleting their own question as an alternative way of keeping a draft. Would this be worse than closing? It still causes unwanted updates of the question list, but causes additional frustration for users who can't see what has happened.

Do we need to better communicate the existing draft mechanism to reduce the chance of a user choosing to use closing or deleting as an improvised draft?

Karl Knechtel‭ wrote 3 months ago

If by "draft mechanism" you mean the feature by which posts are auto-saved and there's also a manual "save draft" button, I strongly doubt that people are seeing that as a way to store "not yet ready" questions longish-term while polishing them - it comes across as a recovery mechanism in case one's browser crashes while typing the post. For this to "work" as described, it not only needs to be promoted, it needs to be more functional (e.g., potentially store multiple drafts per user; and have a way to check on them from one's user page; and perhaps have a way to start out a post deliberately "as a draft" and "finalize" it later).

trichoplax‭ wrote 3 months ago

That sounds like a promising feature request in the making...