Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • 1
    Your modified suggestion for on hold behavior is way too open to abuse, imo. Aside from that, it's the same as the original suggestion (the gentler term bit and all). Commented May 15, 2013 at 21:28
  • @Manishearth: I see your point. But my main point is that the transition from "[On Hold]" to "[Closed]" should reflect a real change of status, a feature that the original proposal lacks. See the next-to-last paragraph of my updated answer. Commented May 15, 2013 at 22:23
  • It's not supposed to be a real status change, though. It's just a psychological trick. We want closing to be instantaneous, and to behave the same. However, we don't want to scare newbies off with "[closed]", as "closed" in forum speak usually means "dead forever" (which leads to unnecessary bickering and whining when they can just fix the goddamn question) Commented May 16, 2013 at 5:01
  • @Manishearth: I understand that, in the proposal, the transition from "[On Hold]" to "[Closed]" is not supposed to be a real change in status. I'm saying that I think that's a bad idea that will cause confusion. I think it would be better to leave it as "[On Hold]" indefinitely or to make the transition a real one. Commented May 16, 2013 at 15:06
  • Agreed. Is it true that the only difference between "on hold" and "closed" is that the triggering event occurred in the last 5 days? I'm still not sure. Commented Jun 27, 2013 at 1:51