# Does this 3D Printing site want only three votes to close (or should we stick with five)?

I've just noticed this Meta post, Testing three-vote close and reopen on 13 network sites and I wondered whether we should employ it here, and what do other people think?

We are a smallish site, with a smallish number of active users (although it isn't that small, and is slowly growing over time, it should be noted). We don't have a problem with review queues building up except with the close votes. Some questions do seem to hang around for a while in the close queue.

The problem with the close vote review queue requiring 5 votes when there is a limited number of active reviewers (where two of which are moderators) is this: If a moderator votes, then the question is automatically closed, even if there aren't 5 votes - if a moderator casts the first vote to close then the question is closed straight away, without waiting for another four votes - so the vote is not democratic, but instead, dictatorial in nature. As such, moderators tend to not vote, unless the question blatantly needs closing (i.e. spam, vulgarity, etc.).

There are ways around this problem:

• sock puppets (moderators have a fake account to cast votes only in the review queue), or;
• waiting for four votes and then a moderator casting the fifth vote (or waiting for three votes and then moderators agreeing (behind the scenes) to cast the final two votes, etc.)

However, these aren't ideal, and just shortening the queue might make things better. This need not be a permanent change, I guess, so if this site, for some reason, eventually exploded in popularity, the review queue could go back to five votes (but I'm not 100 % sure about that, see the SE.Meta post above to check).

To make things super simple, and if you don't have time to write a comment or answer, you can just vote on the Yes answer or the No answer.

### End of voting date

To give this vote an end point, and not make it so opened-ended, I guess we should tally a "final" vote on the 1st July 2021 - which is May 6 (trial start date) plus 45 days (length of trial) plus a little bit more. As we can't join the trial halfway through, there isn't much point to tallying up the votes before that.

At that point Catija will be sent the results.

• Please note: Catija has been notified of the results (8-1 in favour as of this date).
– Greenonline Mod
Jul 6 at 3:20

## Yes, we should have a three vote close question review queue

• Being a relative small site with few very active members that can actually vote, it is more a need to have a three vote closure review queue than a five vote. Note that three used to be the default, but large sites required five: We ended up with five votes to close based on very specific feedback from the early days of closure and the very immature state of review, though it had previously been three.
– 0scar Mod
May 18 at 12:13
• I agree with @0scar; for a small population site, three votes should be plenty. What's our membership here, a few hundred? And how many of those have review privileges? May 24 at 14:25
• @ZeissIkon - you can see the users' statistics here. review queues at 350 rep and close votes at 500 rep - see Privileges.
– Greenonline Mod
May 25 at 5:57
• Thanks, @Greenonline. My guess wasn't far off. Heh. I'm "in on the ground floor." May 25 at 11:31
• We are a tiny community. We should be able to lock questions quicker. Jul 31 at 15:14
• @ZeissIkon We are about 10 main people active, 2 of them mods. Jul 31 at 15:15

## No, we should stay with the five vote close question review queue

• Just for the record, if I could vote on my own answer, personally (and not as a mod) I would vote "No - keep 5 votes". Why? Because a number of stupid reasons: (a) I don't like closing things; (b) I don't like change; (c) The system sort of works as it is (with the mods using their super-powers to clean things up); (d) laziness, and; (e) I like playing "devil's advocate"... All of which are bad reasons to vote "No", I agree - but that is my vote.
– Greenonline Mod
May 22 at 0:40