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.
Post History
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 ...
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
Monica Cellio
·
2024-02-02T17:50:45Z (10 months ago)
I agree that we probably *do* want people to be able to self-close, 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?
- 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.
#1: Initial revision
by
Monica Cellio
·
2024-02-01T02:04:36Z (10 months ago)
I agree that we probably *do* want people to be able to self-close, 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?