I have seen many times when a question for instance is closed as off-topic, though in fact it should be closed as unclear, and is not off-topic though some may think so, but the change reason stays though it is wrong and gives the wrong message, and instead of having to reopen the question and then close it for the correct reason or just leaving it, I think that users should have the ability to also change the close reason (if 5 users vote to change the reason it is changed) to a better suited one if the current one is wrong.

I have also seen many times when questions are closed as duplicates of ones that they are not really duplicates of, and when better duplicates show up you can't do anything about it, and sometimes the question you closed it as duplicate against is not similar enough to the proper duplicate to be closed against that instead.

So I just think that users should have the ability to vote to change the close reason (they should probably get this ability either at something like 10k or when they get the ability to close vote).

This has already been suggested on [Meta.SE] (though I did know about this until I posted my question here): We need to be able to vote to change the close reason

  • 3
    Related Meta.SE feature-request: meta.stackexchange.com/q/207768/302251
    – kos
    Dec 27, 2015 at 23:49
  • 6
    ZOMG!!!11! Finally, a useful request. +1
    – muru
    Dec 28, 2015 at 7:27
  • @muru: "ZOMG"? "11"?
    – user364819
    Dec 28, 2015 at 14:03
  • flag it to moderator or ping mod in chat room like here
    – Ravan
    Dec 29, 2015 at 3:09
  • I think 11 is your feature-request tag questions except this one :p and ZOMG here @ParanoidPanda
    – Ravan
    Dec 29, 2015 at 3:12
  • 1
    Also I think, you should be able to change your own close vote reason while it isn't closed yet. I mean e.g. I vote to close as unclear, the OP edits it while it hasn't been finally closed yet, and it now becomes off-topic instead. I can only retract my close vote in this case, but then I can't vote to close it for any other reason any more. You might want to edit that into your question @ParanoidPanda?
    – Byte Commander Mod
    Dec 29, 2015 at 15:05
  • @ByteCommander: I have asked for that before and it was rejected. Something to do with stopping abuse and spam and there was something else as well... You'll have to ask someone like Seth or one of the other moderators why it is being rejected.
    – user364819
    Dec 30, 2015 at 19:57

1 Answer 1


Until/unless this feature request is ever implemented, these are the current options in situations like this.

  • Comment on the question, warning people in your comment

    This alerts others to the potential problem, and is the most immediately visible way of getting your warning to people, because you don't have to wait for a moderator and you don't have to wait for a vote.

  • Appeal to a moderator by flagging "in need of moderator intervention"

    Presumably, a moderator has the power to immediately re-open and then close a question for the correct reason. Whether they would do this on request, I don't know.

  • Vote to re-open, so you can later close it for the correct reason

    Technically, a vote to re-open a question is a vote indicating that the question was wrongly closed, which you can argue is true in these cases. Others may not feel the same and you may find it difficult to get enough votes to re-open. I would be hesitant to recommend this as a general solution to this problem; it may only be appropriate in some cases.

    Important: if people then vote to close it again for the same (incorrect) reason as before, then this isn't the fault of the system, but a natural consequence of giving people a vote: sometimes the majority can be wrong.

  • you also should provide an appropriate comment when aiming to go the reopen/close again way.
    – guntbert
    Dec 29, 2015 at 20:27
  • 2
    "sometimes the majority can be wrong", uhm... I think that the majority is wrong most of the time. :P
    – user364819
    Dec 30, 2015 at 19:59

You must log in to answer this question.