I encountered this question in the close vote queue: Error messages after creating a new linux user

It has 4 close votes from (I assume) people thinking the question was about the unix chown command rather than Perl's chown method which was clarified in the comments.

Astute reviewers will (hopefully) notice this and vote to Leave Open but it'll only take one reviewer not really paying attention to close it.

If reviewers are voting to leave the question open, would it make sense to move it further away from the close threshold, rather than teetering on 4 until it times out of the queue? Should the number of Leave Open votes be displayed in the review to indicate that perhaps something has been changed/clarified since the close votes were cast?

I don't think it's a bad suggestion but, if there are comments that would likely keep it from being closed by clarifying the problem, then a user with experience in that field should edit the question and make it more obvious. –  codeMagic Jun 19 at 16:53
Each user that views the question outside of the review queue who has enough reputation to vote to close but didn't vote to close implicitly left it open. I don't think that each of those views should cancel out a close vote (maybe they can't judge whether a possible duplicate actually is, or don't know the domain well enough to tell whether something's clear or not). In principle, those kinds of questions in the queue should probably be skipped, but I bet they're often Left Open. –  Joshua Taylor Jun 19 at 21:12
Alternatively, if something like this is implemented, then it should probably be implemented outside the queue, too, right? If a user with enough rep to close vote sees a question with some close votes, should they be able to cancel one out (perhaps using up one of their votes for the day)? –  Joshua Taylor Jun 19 at 21:13
@JoshuaTaylor, an option outside the queue similar to the current close option would be a nice addition too, perhaps as a separate count rather than cancelling a close vote (it would still be useful to see the reasons people thought it should be closed). It would have to be a definite action though, not triggered by someone simply viewing the question and not deciding to close. –  RobEarl Jun 20 at 8:27
@codeMagic Fair point, I've edited the question now so it is more obviously Perl code. Unfortunately, it was already closed! –  RobEarl Jun 20 at 8:38

1 Answer 1


What's the purpose of a do nothing option?
As currently implemented the Leave open option is merely a variant of the skip button.
As such it has no value other than increasing your review counter.
I strongly believe that the UI options should have actual value beyond acquiring gamification points.

If the Leave open option is too strong a weapon to have in the hands of mere mortals than we can always increase the rep limit for it and leave the Do nothing option instead.

The button is mislabeled
Quite apart from the above issue the Leave open option is mislabeled. If it does nothing then it should state that it does nothing and be changed to read My view is clouded, my mind is troubled, yet I'm unsure how to proceed, though I may rue (nay lament) my inaction later, I choose to: Do Nothing

or maybe

while (q.status not in [reopened, closed, deleted]) do begin

I thought we had that button, we just shortened its caption to "Skip" –  Cody Gray Jun 20 at 11:50
@CodyGray, but then leave open and skip are the same thing. That does not make sense on a UX level. –  Johan Jun 20 at 12:28
@Johan Enough "leave open" votes take the question out of the review queue. –  user000001 Jun 20 at 12:56

You must log in to answer this question.

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