While I have a particular question in mind, I don't want this meta to be about that question. That question is just what got me thinking.

If a question is closed, but not moved to another SE site, it's because the quality of the question is not palatable to some users. There is a number of reasons why that maybe.

But what would be an acceptable reason for someone to edit such a question and not vote to reopen it? Presumably, after an edit, the question's content is more acceptable to the user making the edits. Shouldn't that user automatically be considered to have voted for the question to be reopened? If there is no way to make this automatic, should users be encouraged to vote to reopen after an edit?

I freely admit that I haven't thought it through. So if there have already been discussions of this, I would appreciate a link.

| |
  • "Presumably, after an edit the question's content is more acceptable to the user making the edits." because "more acceptable" doesn't mean "is acceptable"? I could edit and incorporate all OP's comments to make it "more acceptable", but if it's still unclear, I wouldn't vote to reopen it because "it's still not acceptable" for me. – Andrew T. Feb 21 '19 at 9:48
  • You seem to already have a set of guidelines in mind. Perhaps you'd like to post them in an answer? – yannis Feb 21 '19 at 14:29

Not every edit necessarily fixes everything that's wrong with the question. Maybe I just fix the tags and correct a few spelling and grammar mistakes to make it more understandable what the question is actually about. But I might still disagree with the content of the question itself which I didn't want to change without consulting the author first.

So in my opinion, editing and voting to reopen should stay two separate actions.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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