-4

Just for information:

Is it a common statistical distribution for Stackexchange Unix&Linux, that 2 of 3 review voters for reopening closed questions are 2 of 5 close voters for a question?

Thank You for informing me about this detail and please add a percentage number if available or that statistical detail.

16
  • 8
    I don't understand the question. One of the options when reviewing is to vote to close, so it is usually the same people who review and vote. What do you mean?
    – terdon Mod
    Commented Jun 24 at 13:08
  • 2
    But, what is the nonsense? Can you please edit your question and explain what the problem is? I honestly do not understand. What are review voters? If this is about your question, I also realy don't understand why in the world it is so heavily downvoted. I have explained my issue with it in the comments, but I didn't downvote and I don't quite see why it has gotten so many, but sometimes people are strange.
    – terdon Mod
    Commented Jun 24 at 20:05
  • 2
    One thing you could change is instead of asking for why something does not exist (which is indeed a question of opinion), try asking how to do something.
    – terdon Mod
    Commented Jun 24 at 20:05
  • reviewers seems not even read the question, there's no question anymore why something does not exist, that's plain clicking automatism maybe out of frustration or for other feelings for to vent out of reasons unknown to me and, sorry, but this questions asks for 2 of 3 review voters and compares to 2 of 5 close voters (one time a group of 3 and one time a group of 5), but share for the review task a common base that has majority of 66%. If it's about feelings (no statistics on that?) majorities don't very often reflect or correct their behavior without will to mature or because of power.
    – beyondtime
    Commented Jun 25 at 5:17
  • 1
    This doesn’t seem statistically unlikely at all. 2/5 falls between 1/3 and 2/3 so one should expect those even if actions were even across curators. In practice I would expect the higher ratio since active curators are likely to take part in both voting and reviewing. Commented Jun 25 at 5:49
  • @MisterMiyagi Is it likely they correct their close decision if circumstances changed if they are a majority? Therefore, is there a statistical anomaly with review majorities voting for not reopen a question and these voters being involved with voting for to close a question (even if that question's content changed almost completely, including headline question)? It seems not reasonable anymore.
    – beyondtime
    Commented Jun 25 at 5:57
  • 4
    @beyondtime Whatever you are after, statistics is the wrong approach. It’s likely more productive to ask about whatever outcome or effect you are actually interested in directly. Commented Jun 25 at 6:21
  • @MisterMiyagi How to tell? If people explained Einstein his E=m*c² was not useful for them and they don't understand its purpose, what would Einstein have thought 10 years after this publication about that interaction of 'ostracize what 'we' don't understand, because if not visible it does not disturb our common conception of reality?' and if it's not about logical coherence with people's actions (here), than it is emotional behavior (dependent on maturity), what might be shown in statistics (and i don't know, how to put it more simple for understanding)
    – beyondtime
    Commented Jun 25 at 6:36
  • 5
    I have no real idea what you're after. Your question starts by asking if reviewers are related to close voters and the first thing that springs to mind is which reviewers? There are multiple review queues on the site. Then you want statistics for this unknown reviewers/close voter correlation. And you believe the statistics are going to explain how something is wrong instead of...describing something. What statistics usually do. With the latest comment, seems you insinuate any closure is equivalent to people shunning progress. Which...seems to misrepresent both reviewing and closing.
    – VLAZ
    Commented Jun 25 at 6:44
  • @VLAZ since there are no statistic options presented Your interpretation would be without a common base for comparing and analyzing for anomalies(?), but i'm unsure if You meant that, considering progress in behavior(?) for reviewing, closing or reopening(?), otherwise it would be forms of misuse of power(?) from plain logics. Since i did not know that detail, that there are different rules for the review queues, i edited the question for clarity. (thx)
    – beyondtime
    Commented Jun 25 at 7:01
  • 2
    "...I'm tired and depressed from this ongoing nonsense...." As far as I know, there is no one forcing you to contribute to the platform. If a feeling that the people who vote to close the questions are responsible enough to reopen the questions after they have been improved harms you, the best thing you can do for yourself is to leave the platform. If it makes you happy keep using ChatGPT as you say you do in your profile description -- no one will be mad or upset, we just want the best for you. Commented Jun 25 at 11:03
  • @Augusto Vasques it's different, Your friends will applaude You on some platforms, independently from facts, that's ok, but You can have a look on facts also and not all groups on a platform are equal in behavior and if You compare the facts chatGPT can be way more efficient (in some way and how is asked) if results suit Your interest and needs. If i'm far from Your POV on facts, please tell me, greetings to You.
    – beyondtime
    Commented Jun 26 at 6:29
  • 5
    Do what's best for you. Think only of your health, look for places where you feel good. You're not obliged to do anything and you don't have to prove anything to anyone. SE platforms should only be used willingly. If you don't feel good here, don't allow yourself to be consumed. Throw away everything that isn't good for you and only look for things that are good for your life, go where you're happy. Commented Jun 26 at 7:32
  • 3
    @beyondtime What do you gain by precisely knowing the fact you ask about here? You already know it's common enough to happen on one of your question. What does a "yes/no" answer add to that? What does an "X%" answer add to that? What does an "Y% for closures after Z minutes", or "A% for substantially changed questions", or … answer add to that? There's a ton of statistics distributions one could look at without actually answering anything. Commented Jun 26 at 7:39
  • 5
    Part of this reminds me of an earlier post; quoting: "I think the pattern you are seeing may simply be that the names that keep recurring are the same names that appear in the list of those who are taking the time to do the reviews in the first place." -- this is a moderately large community, but it's a self-selected few that participate in reviews, so I'm not surprised by some overlap.
    – Jeff Schaller Mod
    Commented Jun 27 at 0:59

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .