# Accidentally editing without knowing a question was closed in the review queue made a question unable to be reopened. New feature to prevent this.

I have seen this large issue with this website which can endanger the new user:

It was accidentally done that one edited the question of another user whose question was already closed, but then had this edit approved. The first edit after a closed question is done goes to the reopen queue for confirmation. However, because this edit did not reopen the question, the asker cannot as easily reopen the question now based on what I was told. This is the link.

The concern here is that this closed question was already in the “new user question queue” which is unrelated to the reopen queue. This means that the editing user was unaware of its closing to then submit a thought “normal edit”, but not an edit to reopen the question. Now the question is in a sort of “soft lock” state in which the OP cannot open it again unless duplicating the question and the like.

Also, here is the conversation in case this user’s question gets deleted. The names have been whited out for privacy, even though anyone can click the link:

I would hate to see this happen to someone else. Please tell me why this happens. There should also be a new feature where this is disabled or there may be multiple edits for reopening a question.

Please give me feedback and correct me! I do not means to downplay this website, even though I have only been on this site for a month and a half now as of this post, but these would significantly improve any Stack Exchange or Overflow website. Please tell me if these can be fixed or explained.

By the way as @hardmath said, here it the timeline for this question as a sample of what happened.

• Why redact the names in the comments to you, when you publicly name me and Gerry in your responses?? – amWhy May 15 at 21:15
• I redacted the names in case anyone felt they did not want to be in the question itself. The continued editing is understood, but there could be an editing limit such as in the comments, and I will probably focus on the two first issues in this edited post, later, and another after this one after editing, simply deleting the other questions. – Tyma Gaidash May 15 at 21:41
• With regard to the first point, Tyma, I think I need to clarify the effect of editing. It is not the case that OP is unable to edit once a post goes to review; OP is still free to edit. What amWhy and I were saying was that users who come to the question via the review queue won't see these later edits. They will only see the question as it was after the edit that sent it to the review queue – unless thay take the time to go to the question directly, to see whether there have been any further edits. Which is something I think reviewers should do – they should always go to the updated version. – Gerry Myerson May 16 at 0:12
• By the way, I hope someone will correct what I've just posted, if I have misunderstood the workings of the review queue. – Gerry Myerson May 16 at 0:14
• The timeline for the post shows that the First Post review, which occurred before the Close vote and which resulted in Tyma's suggested edit (later approved by amWhy and one other), occurred before the Reopen review. So you couldn't have known it "was already closed," but you could see that the post was a PSQ (problem statement question) and that your edit did not help overcome that shortcoming. I'm going to vote to reopen this Meta Question as your edit has improved the focus here. – hardmath May 16 at 1:22
• @hardmath Even with the full meaning, what is a PSQ? Also, do you mean that this shows that I did not edit “purposefully” to improve the question to open it again, and not just to improve the format which is unrelated to the close edit? I also find it weird how I created this around 7 hours ago and this is still the first question on the questions tab. No one else asked anything else as of this time today... – Tyma Gaidash May 16 at 2:03
• It is shorthand for a Question presenting a problem without context, in this case an integration to perform with no explanation of what the user tried, what brought it to the user's attention, what makes it interesting, etc. I've advocated for very minimal context, but here there was nothing to meet even my standards. – hardmath May 16 at 2:08
• You are fairly new here, and though you've earned the right to review First Posts and Late Answers, the other review queues are not accessible yet (and you can't be expected to spot some interaction of First Posts with Reopen queue that might occur in the future). The rate of new posts on Meta is much slower than on the main site, of course, and which posts are at the top depends to some extent on post activity and user preferences. – hardmath May 16 at 2:14
• Somewhat related: Should I avoid minor edit of a question which was put on hold? – Martin Sleziak May 16 at 2:48
• "the OP cannot open it again unless duplicating the question and the like." This isn't quite true. OP has the option of posting to Meta to request reopening – there is a thread on Meta dedicated to precisely such requests. Of course, OP would have to make a case supporting reopening, and judging from what I have read here that would require OP first to make some significant improvement to the question. I don't think anything is stopping OP from editing the question. – Gerry Myerson May 16 at 6:34
• "I redacted the names in case anyone felt they did not want to be in the question itself." The point is that you were incomplete in doing that. Your replies contain the user names as was pointed out to you. It does not really help to remove the name of the authors of the comments when you address them in the reply by name. Also here, try to see the big picture, and do not focus only on technicalities: everybody reading the text on the screen-capture will still know who wrote the comments. – quid May 16 at 11:33
• Wow, this was actually reopened! Also, one told me in the comments as a suggestion to put this into the meta. – Tyma Gaidash May 16 at 12:01
• I think the point that Tyma is making here is valid: a question becomes less likely to be reopened due to the actions of a 3rd party, and that is unfair. Telling someone that they should be more careful only changes that one person's actions, and maybe a few more people's too, but just as people are willing to dump, and others to answer, Problem Statement Questions, we cannot simply assume people will obey the advice here. Nor can we assume people will have heard this advice! Improving the system seems to make the most sense. – user1729 May 16 at 13:32
• @user1729 yet if the 3rd party edit was somewhat good and it is not placed in the queue we could then lament about that and ask for it to be introduced. Somewhere one has to draw the line. – quid May 16 at 14:53

You are over-focusing on one aspect here that is not even the main problem.

The edit was a bit pointless at best and unhelpful at worst. This is independent of the mechanics of the queues.

The question is unclear and more broadly unsuitable for the site before and after your edit. Your edit does not really improve the question in that it does nothing to address the core problems.

The $$x$$ vs $$X$$ issue and the missing context. It is good to improve posts via adding MathJax but not prematurely. If the original poster is not comfortable with MathJax the addition might hinder them in their update.

Somewhat orthogonal to this you say:

Now the question is in a sort of “soft lock” state in which the OP cannot open it again unless duplicating the question and the like.

That is not at all true. The reopening itself is in no way impeded. What was used up is a one-time visibility booster, the automatic addition to the review queue on an edit. Ultimately it is not that big a deal.

The core issue is that one should not do minor edits, especially not suggested edits, that do not really address the core problems of the post. One reason for this is are the mechanics of the queues but that is not the only or even the main reason.