5

It's an echo to this post: Reminder for own (unanswered) question

Sometimes, a question have an answer in commentary or fix the problem in other way. For example, my question latex to lualatex error at compilation , as been fixed by using an up-to-date system as said in comment. So perhaps the question should be closed and put a commentary in the first post to say why.

For example:

It's an old system, an update fixed it

What do you think about it?

  • You think of a closing feedback? Well, there is basically one, but for close voters only – user31729 Jun 2 '14 at 11:17
  • A closing feedback made by the question's owner in fact. When problem is solved but due to some mistake from him (in my example an old system), he can close is question saying what are the reason for this – Romain Picot Jun 2 '14 at 12:26
8

Always have the community in mind when performing an action on the site. This holds for virtually everything. In this case, I would agree that closing the question is completely fine, specifying a condition that an updated distribution fixed the problem.

For most things on this site, including performing actions on posts that you don't yet have the privilege of doing, you can always flag a post for moderator attention and explain your situation.

From the Site Moderators Help Centre:

The most common moderator task is to follow up on flagged posts. Every post contains a small flag link, which anyone with 15 reputation can use. Posts can be flagged as spam, offensive, or just general “needs moderator attention” with an explanatory comment or link. Once flagged, a post increments a flag count that shows up in the topbar for every moderator.

If you see anything in the system that is evil, weird, or in any way exceptional and deserving of moderator attention for any reason...flag it! That’s the primary job of a moderator: to look at every flagged post, and take action if necessary.

Moderators also have some special abilities necessary to handle those rare exceptional conditions:

  • Moderator votes are binding. Any place we have voting — close, open, delete, undelete, offensive, migration, etc — that vote will reach the threshold and take effect immediately if a single moderator casts a vote.

  • Moderators can lock posts. Locked posts cannot be voted on or changed in any way.

  • Moderators can protect questions. Protected questions only allow answers by users with more than 10 reputation.

  • Moderators can see more data in the system, including vote statistics (but not ‘who voted for this post’) and user profile information.

  • Moderators can place users in timed suspension, and delete users if necessary.

  • Moderators can perform large-scale maintenance actions such as merging questions and tags, tag synonym approvals, and so forth.

A lot of the moderation work is mundane: deleting obvious spam, closing blatantly off-topic questions, and culling some of the worst-rated posts on the site. The ideal moderator does as little as possible, but those little actions may be powerful, visible, and highly concentrated.

If you have questions about the reasoning behind a moderator's actions, bring them up for discussion on meta. Remember to be constructive and polite; moderators have the best interest of the site in mind, but they may occasionally make mistakes or have to deal with controversial issues on which not everyone agrees.

  • This is a very sensible answer. "Flag it and let the moderator deal with it". – Floris Jun 2 '14 at 21:00
  • As Floris said, flag and let other people make it, give more work to the moderator. Perhaps is not needed – Romain Picot Jun 3 '14 at 6:52
  • @RomainPicot: Yes, it's not necessary to flood moderators with work. But if you don't know what to do, they're there to help. – Werner Jun 3 '14 at 6:54
  • You should be right. I'm not really inspired by this idea but could work if their is no flood – Romain Picot Jun 3 '14 at 6:57
5

The privilege to cast close votes on your own questions is granted at 250 reputation. Thus, you should already be able to do this.

  • Even if I'm able some people should want to close their question and give a reason but can't because of not enough rep. It's a feature wich can be implemented I think – Romain Picot Jun 2 '14 at 18:19
  • 1
    People at every reputation level can edit their own questions to include, at the top of the question, a request that the question be closed, with additional details if necessary. In my experience, such requests are usually honored. – Charles Staats Jun 2 '14 at 18:24
  • 2
    Moreover, it seems to me that what you are requesting is that an existing feature become available at a lower reputation threshold. I don't necessarily disagree, but you would need to present a compelling case for why the existing threshold is misguided to have any chance of convincing the StackExchange team to reverse a previous decision. – Charles Staats Jun 2 '14 at 18:29
  • Even if you have the 250 reputation, you'll need 4 other people to close your question according to your link. For your own question yours could be sufficient to close no? – Romain Picot Jun 3 '14 at 6:51
  • @RomainPicot: I think it is good a idea to have four close-voters, otherwise a lot of other questions would have been closed with 'a wink of an eye' by just one or two voters. I suggest rather a reduced number of close votes necessary if the OP owner votes for closing himself, say two voters at most, one of it being the OP. – user31729 Jun 11 '14 at 12:14
  • @ChristianHupfer your proposition sounds well. It'll make less work for moderation team if only one person should look and didn't disturb other procedure. This permit to have some control to avoid people who closed their question for no reason. – Romain Picot Jun 11 '14 at 12:29

You must log in to answer this question.

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