This question is a follow up on my previous question on Quant Meta SE here and on what was suggested in the comments on the Main Meta SE here (i.e. to ask another question here on Quant Meta, with a narrower scope, and if enough users support this clearly defined scope, we could ask for implementation).

Currently, 5 users are required to close questions on Quant SE. Should fewer users be allowed to close low-quality questions (i.e. 3)?

Please up-vote if you believe that allowing fewer users to close questions would help to deal with low quality posts on Quant SE in a more agile and efficient way.

Please down-vote this question if you disagree.

If enough up-votes & comments underneath, we could ask for this to be implemented.

Other resources to consider:

  • Experiment on Hardware Recommendations SE with lower votes required to close questions (seems to have worked well, particularly also because fewer votes are then required to re-open said question, which only seems fair)

  • Three voting closure already waiting for implementation on some other SEs

  • $\begingroup$ quant.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1574/… I agree. When I asked it didn't seem possible. $\endgroup$
    – Attack68 Mod
    Mar 1 at 18:19
  • $\begingroup$ As per the latest comment on the main Meta under my question there, since we now seem to have a decent consensus here on Quant Meta SE, the next steps would be (as per @Luuklag's suggestion): "seeing you have consensus you get your Mods to contact the CM team to assist in making the required changes." I propose in the request, this question is referenced. $\endgroup$ Mar 2 at 11:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Attack68: would you be happy to give this a shot, please? I am happy to write up the proposal, if you'd prefer that. $\endgroup$ Mar 2 at 11:27
  • $\begingroup$ @BobJansen: would you (or Attack68) be happy to give this a shot, please? I am happy to write up the proposal, if you'd prefer that. $\endgroup$ Mar 2 at 11:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Im a fairly non-technical mod, I know how to do the basic mod stuff but beyond that scope its probably better if Bob gives it a try! $\endgroup$
    – Attack68 Mod
    Mar 2 at 12:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm afraid that is too much credit but if I remember correctly, the tag I added will ping the CM team 🤞 $\endgroup$
    – Bob Jansen Mod
    Mar 2 at 14:16
  • $\begingroup$ @BobJansen: I think for the implementation, we gotta decide if we want 2 or 3. Could everyone please comment clearly if they are in favour of 2 or 3 close votes? $\endgroup$ Mar 9 at 9:07
  • $\begingroup$ Good point, 3 seems reasonable to me. $\endgroup$
    – Bob Jansen Mod
    Mar 9 at 9:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Attack68: could you pls express your preference for whether it should be 2 or 3 votes? $\endgroup$ Mar 9 at 9:14
  • $\begingroup$ 3 for now. If no improvement then move to 2 later. $\endgroup$
    – Attack68 Mod
    Mar 9 at 12:53
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks guys, I've edited the question accordingly. $\endgroup$ Mar 9 at 14:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You are correct, @BobJansen — this has made its way to the CM backlog, and we'll get back to you once we have updates ^_^ $\endgroup$
    – JNat StaffMod
    Mar 10 at 12:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You may have seen that we conducted a test on 13 network sites — please stay tuned for the results of that step and next steps on this. $\endgroup$
    – JNat StaffMod
    Jul 9 at 10:36
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, @JNat: I look forward to the implementation! $\endgroup$ Jul 9 at 12:27
  • $\begingroup$ @JNat Did you get the results? $\endgroup$
    – Bob Jansen Mod
    Sep 16 at 7:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .