4

This question (and its answer) are obviously off-topic and low quality for Stack Overflow. I have voted to close it, but the question has since failed to garner any other votes, probably because it's categorized under some unpopular tags.

Would I be safe to assume this is inappropriate for a flag? Would the course of action be to just leave it?

| |
  • 4
    Is it causing that much concern that you think the moderators need to be involved? Mods should only be involved when the community cannot handle it themselves. You can easily pop into chat and ask other users to vote to close without flagging it for the moderators. – Taryn Jul 2 '14 at 20:01
  • @bluefeet Fair enough - I'm sure a case could be made that if low-quality/off-topic questions are allowed to fester they may encourage more low-quality/off-topic questions, but it certainly doesn't cause me personally enough concern to put a flag in for it. – esqew Jul 2 '14 at 20:02
  • 1
    @esqew The real question is whether or not this offtopic question needs more attention from possible closers than all of the other close worthy questions out there. Sometimes the answer is yes, if, say, it's attracting a lot of spam, or heated problems between users, etc. Usually, if it's just another question that should be closed like any other, whatever you do to give it extra attention and get it closed is likely drawing attention away from some other question that would have been closed instead. – Servy Jul 2 '14 at 20:10
8

Would I be safe to assume this is inappropriate for a flag? Would the course of action be to just leave it?

Yes, just leave it. If there's one close vote on a question, it's already been added to the Close Votes review queue, so someone will look at it eventually.

If there's an old, popular, off-topic question that people are actively using as an excuse for posting similar questions, go ahead and throw a flag explaining that and a moderator can have a look.

| |
  • 7
    Someone may look at it eventually, if the close vote doesn't age out first... – Servy Jul 2 '14 at 20:08
  • @Servy I thought close votes only aged away after so many people had looked at a post without casting more close votes. – Bill the Lizard Jul 2 '14 at 20:09
  • 2
    A post leaves the queue if there are 3? votes to leave open. That's not aging, that's just the queue making the active decision to not close it. If the post goes X days (where X is currently 4) without attracting an additional vote/flag to close, and where it doesn't already have Y flags (where Y is currently 3) then it is removed from the queue. Here is shog's longer explanation. You could ask Shog for some stats on what percent of CV review items have aged out recently as compared to left the queue with a decision. – Servy Jul 2 '14 at 20:13
  • 4
    @Servy Oh right, I forgot about the fuzzying rules. They make my head hurt a little. – Bill the Lizard Jul 2 '14 at 20:18
  • @BilltheLizard: Yeah, kinda like the rules for @.replies (in the sense that my head hurts a little. To be fair, I think they've been simplified over time). – Robert Harvey Jul 2 '14 at 20:19
10

If you're looking for additional help closing a question, you have the option of asking for additional votes in this chat room:

but make sure you follow these conventions:

  • Never inline the question to close, like this:

    BAD

    1

    2

    Instead, add [tag:cv-pls], like (it will help people pick out requests in long conversations), possibly with an explanation (e.g. "too broad", "duplicate", "opinion", etc), and add the link after it, like this:

    GOOD

    3

| |
  • 2
    That's odd; I thought oneboxing it was a good thing. – Robert Harvey Jul 2 '14 at 20:15
  • 7
    @RobertHarvey people seem to not like it. I can kind of understand why. Imagine if the whole chat were filled with close vote requests like that (we get and make a fair number of requests in there). I guess people find it too distracting. Plus, no one wants to stare at big, crappy questions all day long :P – user456814 Jul 2 '14 at 20:16
  • In the Android room we like them oneboxed but I can see how it would muddy up the chat where you get a lot of posts. – codeMagic Jul 2 '14 at 20:21
  • 1
    @InfiniteRecursion Please do not edit the post to include an image of a wrong cv-pls. That is a wrong image of a cv-pls. There should at least be a reason. If you still think that my edit is wrong, please consider checking out at SOCVR. – Ashish Ahuja Jun 21 '16 at 11:46
  • 1
    I did not edit the post @Ash, I did a rollback, because the edit was wrong. I am rolling back this edit for the same reason. The original post was correct, and the edit deviates and deletes the image, hence the rollback. – Infinite Recursion Jun 21 '16 at 18:01
  • 2
    @InfiniteRecursion I'm not a member of tavern, but a member of SOCVR. So at least in SOCVR, you need to cv-pls with a reason. See the first point in "allowed" over here. It clearly states: “[*-pls] REASON post link” (*close/reopen/delete/undelete) If this is not a way to do in tavern, I'll be obliged to edit the post to differentiate between the rooms. – Ashish Ahuja Jun 22 '16 at 10:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/262355/off-topic-questions-that-are-probably-not-going-to-get-voted-closed/262359
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-29
145634
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:AZU5TF3NDZUB37OHL4YKBMDU57AXKPKL
<urn:uuid:ab5ff56a-7b36-48d6-b32d-e50ef4862063>
2020-07-10T20:23:23Z
151.101.65.69
text/html
sha1:PV5OVKEOGO5ASMOZAAXKCUF7GMOFQTKD
<urn:uuid:07e06036-f42d-48ad-b8eb-7b636de29020>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/262355/off-topic-questions-that-are-probably-not-going-to-get-voted-closed/262359
response
<urn:uuid:2fdf6742-139c-4792-a51e-ce14aae28aea>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-29
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-73.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/