Why are the eminent contributors in such a hurry to close questions?

Question

Here are two real facts that show that prominent contributors close questions without taking the time to read them carefully and verify that they are really a duplicate question.

First issue:

Look at this question: Labeling points on a circle [duplicate] it was asked at 5:56 p. m. and is closed after one hour because of a duplicate question.

However, the OP explains that it cannot apply the answer codes: and for good reason, because the other question does not solve its problem at all.

A closer look at the question shows that this new collaborator did not see the essential difference between the two questions: he uses the operation \node to draw the regular polygon while in the other question he uses a \foreach with on a \draw operation.

Second issue:

The same problem arose with this question: I want a figure to be positioned above a tikzpicture

It was asked at 4:57 am and a request for closure was asked in less than an hour. However, it was different because it was another problem due to the standalone class.

I replied, then I added the standalone tag and the closing request was removed.

My questions:

1. Isn't this speed in itself a problem?
2. Isn't this a consequence of the inherent speed of computers and networks?
3. Shouldn't we change the closing rules and leave a few days of latency before we can close a question?

Can you reopen these questions?

I ask for this question (Labeling points on a circle [duplicate] ) to be reopened because it makes it possible to clarify Tikz's various concepts and operations.

Answer 1

The network model is that closing has a higher barrier than reopening: it takes more votes to close a question than it does to reopen one, and any edits to a closed question put it in the reopen review queue. As such, the entire network model is to favour closure of unclear/possible duplicate questions. The idea there is that clarification will lead to reopening, and the number of duplicate answers/unanswered-but-open questions will be kept lower.

Leaving questions 'alone' (perhaps along with a comment) is fine, but it's hard to find such questions after any length of time unless one is very organised. At the same time, other than mods/gold badge holders, a single vote doesn't close a question. That means a consensus must have been reached. (The mod team are wary about closing and very happy to reopen as required.)

Answer 2

Disclaimer: This is a response to a series of personalized attacks. The attacks on me are gone after clarification by Joseph Wright that I did not vote to close any of the posts. This prompted me to re-edit this response.

My problems with your post

I have two main problems with your post:

1. A personalized criticism of @CarLaTeX. I do not think that this is appropriate, and below I will explain why.
2. An IMHO incorrect description of "facts".

Why do I disagree with your criticism of CarLaTeX? IMHO you just pull things out of context. Let us recall how the dialogue starts.

Things to be noted:

1. As you can see, in a comment I suggested something to which the OP responded that it worked.
2. My second comment was a response to @CarLaTeX's suggestion to write an answer. I did not want to write an answer because I thought there are already much better answers available.
3. From the above, my conclusion was that the questions was solved. How else would one interpret "it worked"? Isn't our main concern to solve the problems of other users?
4. CarLaTeX retracted her close vote.

So what precisely is your issue here? Is it legitimate to close a question because it has been solved in the comments? Yes, I think so. (Again, I did not close the question, but I do believe that anyone seeing the comment "it worked" by the OP has a very legitimate reason to close the question.)

The main point here is, similar to what Joseph is saying, that this is a democratic model. Even if a user closes a question by mistake (which did not even happen here), it is not the purpose of the meta site to launch personalized attacks. Rather, democracy just means that you can vote to reopen a question. As explained by Joseph, apart from the gold badge thingy (which I personally do not want to use) this site is very democratic. All voters have the same weight, and the reputation threshold to become a voter is not really huge.

BTW, how do you know that "However, it was different because it was another problem due to the standalone class." is true? After all, your answer did, at the time of writing, not get accepted. On the other hand, my comment got at least a reply that "it worked". (I am not saying that your answer is necessarily wrong, all I am saying is that there is no clear evidence that shows that it is the true answer. So there is a real chance that the OP is happy because their problem is solved and we have a huge unnecessary and emotional discussion here.)

As for the other issue, I disagree with what you write in the sentence that starts with "A closer look". (It might however be that you mean to say the correct thing.) I just want to urge you not to try to advertze your personal opinion as a fact.

And finally, yes, of course, there are are lots of miscommunications and language problems.