Should we have a Grace period to avoid premature Voting to Close and Reopening Cycle

Question

Although I have got sufficient reputation for Voting to Close, I rarely use (personal choice of course**) for a Q which is live on front page screen and less than 24 hrs old and for first-time users, even though it's duplicate or sure off-topic Q.

I am sure those Q's might be a burden for a short period of time for the cleanliness knowledge maintainers, but leaving a clarification-comment to OP and Waiting for Atleast 24 hrs for OP response could give OP a fair chance and also the person wishing to voting-to- close could do so after the grace period expiry using trace back via comment incase of No Response from OP.

In my view instead of closing prematurely and Reopening again with the same speed and hurry,

Should we have a Grace period 24hrs (Atleast for new users) to avoid premature Voting to Close along with a Close-reason comment from atleast 1 of 5 people voting to close.

I may be wrong and All Ideas are welcome

Related meta Q's :

Etiquette: how long do we wait before voting to close?

Etiquette (particularly on voting to close)

** I love this quote "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility"

Answer 1

Some questions are straightforward duplicates and there's no point in waiting the OP to confirm it: see for example https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/149747/include-endlstlisting-inside-lstlisting-block which is a duplicate of Masking \end{lstlisting}

Other cases are not so straightforward and I endorse the idea of giving some grace time for the OP to acknowledge the duplicate or to add information. Reopening a question requires people know it has been proposed for reopening.

Here's what I get from the Review page just now:

And here's what I get from the Tools page:

I'm not sure the system is well behaving. If I go to the Review page, I can't realize there are votes for reopening.

Answer 2

I'm against such a rule, because it doesn't bring anything significantly positive, at least not on TeX.SX.

In many cases the question is resolved in comment, as was pointed out by Joseph, and OP is completely aware that the question is getting closed as dupe or OT, understanding the reasons. In other cases, the question is simply off-topic with now doubt about it, no matter how OP changes it or how he meant it (e.g. "How do I install MathJaX in my webpage", we get these from time to time), or simply duplicate (e.g. "\coloneqq not working").

Actually, symbol questions which are not duplicates of The Symbol Question are the only examples where pre-mature closure happens. However, as you may notice, if that happens, they usually get reopen pretty quickly, so it's not much an issue. Surely not to such extent that it would need the rules to be changed.

Answer 3

Closing is not a death sentence. Close, edit, reopen. The closed question is likely to attract fewer downvotes pending edits, so in some ways, closing is actually helpful. It protects bad questions from being massively downvoted, so they start from a better place when they’re reopened after edits.

Of course, there’s the problem that closing looks final, especially to new users, even though it’s not. A new user might see the big “Closed” sign and give up and go away instead of editing. That’s why the closed questions are displayed as “On Hold” instead for the first five days.