5

Yes, we should lower the threshold -- it will improve the speed of closing and re-opening questions and better allow the community (rather than the moderators) to indicate which questions are acceptable and which aren't. For the avoidance of doubt this is my preferred solution but I can't vote for my own answer.


4

Yes. I would tend to disagree with my fellow mods on this. To get the community to engage and moderate the site, there needs to be content to moderate. And if we rush to closing questions, even if as simple as a duplicate, then users of the site don't tend to even look at the question, never mind vote or act on it. It's no wonder that users don't vote on ...


3

In my case, it was because I didn't see it -- it didn't turn up in my review queue (perhaps because a number of people had already reviewed it and resolved to get to it later) and I was too busy yesterday to look through everything. Had I seen it I would probably have been at a loss for which closure reason to choose, like sempaiscuba. On the more general ...


3

As moderators, we try to stick to @Shog9's advice to moderators when deciding whether to close/re-open vote: When you see a post you think should be closed, close it. When you see a post you think should be re-opened, re-open it. If you're not sure, don't do either. In the case of this question, the answer at https://genealogy.stackexchange.com/a/...


3

The results at Threshold experiment results: closing, editing and reopening all become more effective indicate "that [lowering from 5 to 3] did improve the rate at which bad questions were closed but didn't result in good questions being incorrectly closed", even for our largest site, so I am keen to see it implemented here too. However, even ...


2

I echo @ColeValleyGirl's answer and would like to emphasize that quick closing works best when used hand-in-hand with quick re-opening. If you ever see a question that you think is closed when it should be open (or open when you think it should be closed), and if you have the cast close and re-open votes privilege which comes at a reputation of 500, then be ...


2

I downvoted it when I reviewed it as a first post. For some reason, it doesn't look as if my vote was recorded (perhaps because I was working on a mobile device?). I didn't vote to close at that point, partly because I wanted to parse the question and close for the right reason (there are far too many choices in this case). Yes, the question is a poor fit, ...


2

Firstly, I agree with you that the only opinion that really counts is the living person whose information will be included or withheld in the genealogical work. I am one of the people who voted to close. My problem with this question is that it actually asks for the opinions of this community, rather than asking if there are any generally agreed standards ...


1

I agree. I do not think this question should be closed for the precise reasons that you have presented.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible