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.

  • 1
    @Sebastiano Please don't make such unnecessary edits Feb 2, 2019 at 22:32
  • @samcarter I expected your answer. I was so sure of it.
    – Sebastiano
    Feb 2, 2019 at 22:33
  • 1
    @Sebastiano Then why do you keep making such edits? They might be tolerable if a question is already on the front page, but editing an old question just to remove a few letters that don't perturb anyone is really not useful. On the contrary, such information might even be helpful for readers to access how literal they should take a post Feb 2, 2019 at 22:39
  • How is this comment consistent with what you were (and are) doing here? Isn't it time to make a public apology for making wrong statement instead of trying to teach others what they should not do?
    – user121799
    Mar 7, 2019 at 3:17

2 Answers 2


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.)

  • How many votes are required for the closing and reopening?
    – AndréC
    Dec 1, 2018 at 21:34
  • 1
    See tex.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions: five votes to close, three to re-open
    – Joseph Wright Mod
    Dec 1, 2018 at 21:35
  • 1
    There are 4 votes to reopen the question and it is marked that it is mandatory to have 5, are you sure and certain that it is necessary to have 3?
    – AndréC
    Dec 1, 2018 at 22:33
  • 1
    @AndréC: See How do you reopen a closed question?
    – Werner Mod
    Dec 3, 2018 at 16:16
  • @Werner i quote To reopen a closed question, five (5) people with at least 3000 reputation must agree that the question is suitable for the site and cast votes to reopen the question So reopening an issue is really more difficult than closing it, since those who voted for its closure are convinced that they have made the right decision and will not vote for its reopening, or even oppose it.
    – AndréC
    Dec 3, 2018 at 16:42
  • 3
    @AndréC: No, that's an assumption. I've voted to close before and then changed my mind after a conversation. The system is not broken... you've just been influenced by a single case that has taken longer than expected. This may have been exacerbated by a language barrier.
    – Werner Mod
    Dec 3, 2018 at 16:48
  • @Werner It is indeed a hypothesis. The language barrier is a reality, that's why I generally prefer to avoid conversations in English, because I can not express my thought as finely as in French.
    – AndréC
    Dec 3, 2018 at 17:01
  • Look, there are 4 reopening votes and that's not enough: tex.stackexchange.com/q/469007/138900 It is therefore much more difficult to reopen a question because those who have closed it do not vote for its reopening.
    – AndréC
    Jan 12, 2019 at 6:50

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.

enter image description here

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.

enter image description here

  • I have always had difficulties with foreign languages and have therefore misunderstood. The machine translator didn't help me in this case. These machines have difficulty with complex sentences. I'm sorry. And I'll correct my question.
    – AndréC
    Dec 1, 2018 at 21:40
  • This question is marked duplicate of this question: tex.stackexchange.com/q/32067/138900 not of the one you quoted. It's a big problem.
    – AndréC
    Dec 1, 2018 at 22:03
  • You are not unaware that the vast majority of users always accept the answers of users of high reputation and they are reluctant to accept that of users of low reputation for fear of offending the most famous.
    – AndréC
    Dec 1, 2018 at 22:06
  • 1
    @AndréC What precisely is the "big" problem? You can always vote to reopen the question. This is how a democracy works. Some folks vote for something, and if successful, this something happens. And if then people think that this something is not a good idea, and can vote to repeal it. (And yes, high reputation users tend to get more votes, but this is a different topic.)
    – user121799
    Dec 1, 2018 at 22:08
  • The problem is in a place frequented mainly by mathematicians and computer scientists to see that the closing of the question is made for erroneous reasons.
    – AndréC
    Dec 1, 2018 at 22:10
  • 3
    @AndréC "errare humanum est" is 2000 years old, so what's the new point here?
    – user121799
    Dec 1, 2018 at 22:11
  • In the past, there were no computers and you couldn't close a question after an hour!
    – AndréC
    Dec 1, 2018 at 22:12
  • 2
    @AndréC Yes, sure, if you cannot ask questions online, you cannot close them online either. ;-)
    – user121799
    Dec 1, 2018 at 22:13
  • 2
    Taking the time once solved many problems. The current speed is posing a new problem: the problems are overflown and their difficulty escapes our attention.
    – AndréC
    Dec 1, 2018 at 22:18

You must log in to answer this question.

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