This is not a big deal, but we get a fair share of questions in the "reopen" queue where the edit is done by some well-meaning user in order to fix spelling, grammar or formatting without touching anything that made the question closed in the first place.

It is very rare indeed that a edit by anyone except the OP fixes fundamental problem (after all, it is really hard to guess what the OP meant in the majority of these cases).

It would save us some time if a question only got automatically reopened for voting if it was edited by the OP.

In addition, those with enough rep can always nominate for reopening if they think the edit fixed the problem (those without the rep get their edits reviewed by those who has) If this gets implemented, it will probably be a good idea to lower the rep for nominating for reopening to the same as the rep required to approve "suggested edits" . i.e. 2000.

To put this in perspective, I just reviewed the last 50 items in my "Reopen" review queue (we do not all get the same items for review, so you may not get the same figures as me). Of those 50 items, 47 are still closed. Only 3 (6 %) was reopened. I then examined the 3 items that were reopened. Each and every one of them (100 %) had been edited by the OP.

While the above probably has too few data points to make conclusive statistical evidence, it doesn't look like we'd lose a lot of deserving candidates for reopening by only considering those either edited by the OP or nominated for reopening by another user.

PS: I'm mildly amused by the notion that lowering the threshold for nomination to 2000 for reopening deserves a second downvote, but the same person seems to be perfectly happy with the fact that today, rep 2000 users already can nominate for reopening just by making a trivial edit.

  • Not all people who can edit can also nominate for reopening. And what if non-OP edited question to the level required on this site? What if it's now OK? No longer unclear, for example? I happened to replace texts taken from site in my language with English replacements, for example - it is possible for non-OP to be able to clarify. Why shouldn't we get a look on it? Reopen review queue is not that big, really!
    – Mołot
    Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 14:19
  • I don't think that edit review is a place for reopening decision. I prefer it to stay in reopen review queue. Also, reviewing edits requires 2000 rep, and voting to reopen 3000 - pretty difference, isn't it? So your last paragraph is kinda false. Edit: Suggestion to lower reopen voting limit would earn this request second -1 from me, if it would be possible ;)
    – Mołot
    Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 14:26
  • Good point, but fixable. I've modified the last paragraph to cover this. Lowering this threshold will generate far less noise than the present system, where every edit automatically constitutes a nomination for reopening. And I am not suggesting to move the reopening decision away from its own review queue, only that an option to nominate for reopening is added to the edit queue. The actual process for reaching the decision to reopen should not change. I just want to avoid the noise of having to review for reopening just because somebody corrected a typo. Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 14:36
  • I still think it's way to much changes for something that happens only couple times a day. Also, decision about putting something in review queue is most important part of reopening process. It is the way it is now because too many questions used to be left closed because simply nobody noticed, or ones who noticed didn't care to nominate them first. It was deliberate change from something much closer than you suggest to what we have now, and I can't see any fundamental change in how community works to justify going back to times when it was too easy to overlook a good edit.
    – Mołot
    Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 14:39
  • I'm a little confused by this. According to meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157584/… and meta.stackexchange.com/a/161595/160923 it looks like this should have already been implemented.
    – mpdonadio Mod
    Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 14:44
  • @MPD, What was suggested meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157584/… in is exactly what I put in my feature-request. What was implemented was a variation of this where any edit (not only an edit done by the OP) added it to the reopen queue. Judging by the votes here, people perfer that version over what is described in the post you link to. Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 16:52
  • @FreeRadical Yeah, that is why I am confused. There are other places on MSO that allude to the edits needing to be from the OP to be an auto-reopen-reviewable action. I am going to look into the details tonight.
    – mpdonadio Mod
    Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 16:54
  • @MPD HERE - it was deliberate change due to too low attention on good edits by too-low-rep-to-vote 3rd parties.
    – Mołot
    Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 18:56

1 Answer 1


It used to be as you want it. But it was found to be lacking. See this answer on Meta Stack Exchange:

We just rolled out a change to how questions are automatically added to the reopen queue. Previously, if the author edited a closed post within 5 days of it being closed, that would trigger it to be added to the queue. This was a great way to get additional views for questions that might've been improved enough to be re-opened, but it didn't do much for questions that 3rd-parties without the ability to vote for reopen think should be re-opened.

So rather than implementing some new boring impotent flag for this purpose, we decided to take other criteria into account, things that might indicate a closed question that could use some additional review. Currently, this means that a closed question will automatically be added to the reopen queue when it is...

  • ...Edited (body edits only) within 5 days of closure by the author. Or,
  • ...Edited (body edits only) within 5 days of closure by a 3rd-party, provided the editor has not also flagged the question or voted to close it. Or,
  • ...Sufficiently popular, where popularity is calculated based on question score, top answer score, or views per month. We're still tweaking the exact thresholds for these.

As always, a reopen vote will add a question to the reopen queue if it isn't already in the queue.

Shog9♦ answered Sep 6 '13 at 16:25

Note that Shog9♦ is a member of community team, so he probably knows what he is talking about, and certainly has more access to data than me or you.


I totally agree with him. The amount of posts in reopen review queue is not overwhelming, and adding few clicks a day to my community moderation burden is a fair price for lessened chance that something stays closed when it shouldn't.

  • The data available to me suggests that this doesn't not have any measureable impact on the chance of opening anything. Shog9 hasn't posted any data, and I'd rather not speculate about things I don't know. Commented Apr 17, 2014 at 9:04
  • Your reasoning is based upon the assumption that community mods review all items in the reopen queue with the same care. I can only speak for myself. I review those edited by the OP by opening up the edit trail, and checking if the edits actually addresses the problems. If the editor is a community member known for his/her enthusiasm for proofreading, I just click "Leave closed" and move on. I believe a more precise selector for the reopen queue would ensure that questions edited by known proofreaders would receive more attention. When you design, you need to account for sloth as well Commented Apr 17, 2014 at 9:17
  • @FreeRadical ultimately I think you are posting all this in the wrong place. Mechanism is global. You got the link to global meta where it was introduced. If you want to change it, you must convince SE team to either roll back changes one of them found needed, globally, or to put an effort to split mechanism and allow it to work differently per site.
    – Mołot
    Commented Apr 17, 2014 at 9:20
  • 1
    @FreeRadical also - yes, if you can't put care into review, you should just click skip. If you click anything else without actually reviewing, you are doing it wrong.
    – Mołot
    Commented Apr 17, 2014 at 9:21
  • Mołot, are you saying that at the moment every community member except me either press "skip", or open up the edit trail of each and every item in the queue and read carefully through the changes before voting? If, so you've done far fewer user studies than I would think a man with your experience has done. I am reviewing (i.e. I read the text and see if it now fits the guidance of the help center). I am not just reviewing as carefully as I would have done if I could be more assured that the edit was substantial. Commented Apr 17, 2014 at 9:33
  • Mołot, this our meta-site, so this is where discussion about how we want it to work takes place. AFAIK, there are room in the design for sub-site variations (e.g. some SE sub-sites lets non-mods suggest migration, we don't). Anyway, taking it to the SE team without first getting support from the local community would be an exercise in futility. I actually want the same thing as you (making sure those that deserve a review for reopening gets one). I just have a somewhat less faith in human nature and the diligence of crowds than you do. Commented Apr 17, 2014 at 9:36

You must log in to answer this question.

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