5
\$\begingroup\$

Is there a good reason to be actively closing questions in main while the issue's being discussed here in meta? I imagine there might be good reasons: will some high-rep and long-time members who have seen the comings-and-goings explain a little?

As it stands it seems that closing now may create extra work, if a new policy is implemented specifically allowing tool-rec questions. Proponents of tool-rec allowance would then want to go find the closed ones and re-open. Waiting a few days to start purging tool-rec questions seems--to me--not harmful.

(And perhaps this isn't someone's active efforts--it just so happens that this day, singular among all the days I've had access to the review queue, all of the close votes were for tool-rec questions.)

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ That was me who put the wave of tool-rec VtCs in -- part of it was me interpreting SSD's mod-VtC on my tool-rec Q as a sign it was a settled matter. Oops! \$\endgroup\$ – Shalvenay Oct 11 '15 at 20:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Shalvenay no worries. This is my first time being around for a (possibly-small) paradigm shift, so I wasn't sure how fast these things tend to play out. (I haven't even noticed if (m)any of those you'd flagged ended up getting closed.) \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Oct 11 '15 at 21:19
5
\$\begingroup\$

The community appears to be arguing about the issue with their VTCs and flags, in addition to meta.

As a matter of semi-official policy the mods don't go digging up old rec/shopping questions just to close them. Things in the review queue are normally fair game, but at this moment I'm personally content to leave that battlefield to the community. But recs that show up in the front page, either as new questions or bumps, will get closed. Until the status quo is changed, shopping questions are still off topic, regardless of what is being shopped for.

It shouldn't create new work, either way. Right now shopping Qs that pop up require a little work to close; should tool recs be made on-topic again, the same thing will be true just in reverse. And so long as tagging is done properly, nothing will get lost.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm currently refraining from using VTCs to argue the issue from the leave-open side until discussion is handled. Should I be anti-VTCing things in defiance of our current policy? That seems... unconstructive and unhealthy for the site. \$\endgroup\$ – Please stop being evil Oct 10 '15 at 7:58
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @thedarkwanderer You can vote your conscience. It's not like it will cause long-term or even medium-term damage. Or heck even short-term. There are piles of [game-rec] lying around in a policy-defying state, because they're old and not being bumped. If they're not a concern, this isn't either. Hence why we don't really care about theses close/open fights unless they hit the front page. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Oct 10 '15 at 18:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ I assume this answer reflects what you decided to do starting shortly before posting, as all the questions recently closed in that tag for that reason were closed by you with at most one other close vote. That got my hackles up until I realized what the deal probably was. \$\endgroup\$ – user17995 Oct 13 '15 at 20:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ @TuggyNE Hm? No, this is just regarding the stuff that was suddenly hitting the Close Review Queue. I typically do close/open voting without the queue due to my workflow on the site. You can see the Close Review Queue voting history here. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Oct 13 '15 at 21:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie: I would have checked that already if I had 10k. But OK, fair enough. \$\endgroup\$ – user17995 Oct 13 '15 at 21:08
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @TuggyNE Oh, is history access 10k only? (The queues didn't exist when I was under 10k.) I wish they marked views with their privilege level. :-/ \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Oct 13 '15 at 21:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie: Yeah, it's pretty annoying. I only have one site I can actually view review history on at present. I think 10k privilege description does mention it, but that's all. \$\endgroup\$ – user17995 Oct 13 '15 at 21:11

You must log in to answer this question.

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