4

Today the following item was in the Close Votes Review Queue:

Its bothering me On iftop i can see ip-172---2.ec2.internal Connected to my ubuntu ec2 server for long long time ?? This address doesn't even resolves as its a ec2 internal ip address.. How can block it ?

There are multiple reasons for me to immediately edit this question:

  1. Three more people need to make sense of this before they can meaningfully vote on it. (Unless a mod comes barging in).
  2. as the questions needs extension, with answers to questions in the comment, a cleaner and more exemplary basis for the OP to do that on, is going to increase the value of the Q
  3. If it gets closed unedited, and stays unimproved (content wise) someone might edit its grammar and spelling and it ends up in the reopen queue and maybe in the suggested edit queue as well.

I also want to vote to close this Q, because there is an open questions in comments, that needs to be answered (by extending the Q). I cannot use the [Edit] button option, as this assumes my improvements will improve the Q so much, that it can stay open. What I can do is open the question in another tab, edit it there, and then come back and vote to close it.

As I hoped I showed, there is need for editing and vote to close. Can we get an edit-only link on the presentation of the Close Votes review queue? So that I can improve a question's readability and provide myself (and my fellow reviewers) with an easier to judge text to begin (c.q. continue) with?

One can either remove the [Edit] button and provide the "normal" edit link below the question. Or leave the button in place, as this draws more attention to the possibility of improvement. In that case change the text to [Edit before Voting], or just change the caption.
The effort of the extra button click for [Leave open] resp. [Close] (or [Skip]) after editing, is negligible compared to the editing process itself.

  • Why is this a feature request? – Braiam Sep 17 '14 at 4:32
  • @Braiam because it is a change to the existing functionality of the system. Why do you think it isn't. – Anthon Sep 17 '14 at 4:38
-2

A vote to close is in essence a nomination for deletion, marking the question as no longer eligible for answers and enabling privileged users (and even the system itself in some cases) to delete it after the author is given sufficient time for improvement.

So if you're saying it should be removed entirely, why bother polishing it up? Save your time and energy for those posts that you might actually save.

To address your specific points:

  1. A general inability to make sense of a question is itself a reason to close.
  2. Why are you trying to increase the value of a question you wish to be deleted? This is counter-productive; do one or the other, don't struggle against yourself.
  3. So because someone else might polish a turd, you feel the need to preempt them? Consider instead encouraging others to make substantive edits by providing examples of this in your own work.
  • 2
    Sorry but I don't agree with your premises. I see a vote to close primarily as a signal to the OP to improve the question, especially when selecting "Unclear what your asking". Duplicate questions also often should stay available and not be deleted. In both those cases a Q should be properly readable. I retrospect I actually seldom want to indicate a question should be removed completely. – Anthon Sep 17 '14 at 5:46
  • 2
    Before we determine whether a question should be closed, we need to either understand it, or determine that it cannot be understood by its intended audience. Sometimes this requires editing to format code as code or translate into readable English. Edit-then-close isn't that uncommon: it's one of the possible outcomes of edit-then-decide-whether-to-close. – Gilles Sep 17 '14 at 10:19
  • 2
    Why is a vote to close a prelude to deletion? Far from it! It can be, sure, but it often isn't and not only in the case of duplicates (though they're the most obvious). A wiser man than I once said that one should "vote to delete unless you can see that it has some value for the site". Also, closing gives the OP the chance to edit and fix the question which was the whole point of changing the wording from "closed" to "on hold". Treating it as a prelude to deletion goes against that idea. – terdon Sep 17 '14 at 14:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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