@technastic_tc I think it would be enough for the question to say "hplip is installed", which is what the output tells us. But it seems that OP agreed with the dupe target
if we edit the question now, it will get sent to the reopen queue
I think that question is an XY problem and it's unclear what the current situation is since OP agreed with the dupe closure
I don't think that question should be reopened on the basis of the information that hplip is already installed, unless OP edits to clarify that they still have the problem in spite of that (which would make it not a duplicate)
so I do not think the question should be edited as it will confuse reviewers, and if OP does edit after the post has been through review and left closed, their edit will not send it to reopen
@technastic_tc sorry about that. It looks like your flag was before the closure when it would have been reasonable to edit the question
I mean, it's still reasonable now, but I think it's inadvisable. Previously it was probably advisable (although, as I said "hplip is installed" would have sufficed)
I suggested doing that in a recent meta post, if the comments contain code that is more or less unreadable in comments due to the loss of original line breaks
@technastic_tc yes, that's why I suggested it. Because we can get the line breaks back
and I am saying sorry about your declined flag because, since I suggested flagging code posted in comments for moderator intervention (recently on meta), you could certainly have expected such flags to not be declined
I don't remember seeing any flags like that before I posted about it on meta, so I guess others may be unfamiliar with the idea, and might think it's too much effort to move comments to the post. I will try to talk about it...
One thing which I've noticed recently is that any question related to HPLIP gets closed as duplicate of a post which speaks about how to install HPLIP though HPLIP is already installed in the OP's computer. What's your say on it?
I read the answer yesterday and I don't see how it would help people who have already installed hplip and hplip-gui, though I might be missing something
@technastic_tc yeah... I should try to find some time to look into that
when someone wants to add a close vote, they must also add a brief explanation of why they want the post to be closed. This explanation must be visible to close reviewers. Got my point?
@technastic_tc I think so... but I feel like that would probably not work well... maybe it's because the way close vote information is displayed has changed recently causing me to not understand what you feel is missing. When you vote to close, you have to choose a reason. The reason you choose would be why you are voting to close. You can also give a custom reason (though this should very rarely be used). Any further comments about the closure you want to make could be added as comments
which are also shown to close voters in the queue as well as when viewing the post normally
When I joined the site, before and for a very long time after I gained the close voting privilege, the reason for closure was displayed when a post was closed, along with who had voted to close it, to everyone (I mean that information was displayed publicly). Sometimes you could not tell who exactly had voted for which reason though. A post needs 5 votes to be closed, but they do not need to be for the same close reason
Now the close voters' usernames are displayed only to people with the close voting privilege I think (and the OP?)
and the way the reasons are displayed to users without the close voting privilege is also terrible
I really hope they fix this as at the moment the majority of users can't see what's going on, and those highly engaged members of the community who are on their way to becoming close voters can't learn the nuances of our scope in advance of actually becoming close voters (which means when they become close voters they won't know what they're doing)
I'm not sure whether what I'm rambling about actually explains why you said there should be a requirement for close voters to give an explanation, but to summarize, what I'm saying here is that there is such a requirement already, but that may not be as obvious to you as it should be, and it may have been more obvious in the past.
@Zanna @technastic_tc Another reason of quite a few wrongly closed questions is that not many people who vote to close questions join the Downboat. Discussing there about closing some questions for which someone has a doubt about, could lead to less of them getting closed for the wrong reasons. And if such questions wouldn't get closed in the first place, we wouldn't have to rely on luck, sometimes, to find such a question and try to reopen it.
Also, usually, questions get closed much faster with the coordination of the Downboat, comparing to the queue, which could lead to less questions waiting for review in the queue.
@technastic_tc The Close Votes review queue is already quite time-consuming. If people had to also write a closing reason for their vote, I don't think there would be many people to close questions or closing a question would take too long, which could have the problem of close votes getting expired.
