There are sometimes rather low quality questions appearing in the bounty section. Today these are this and this. In my opinion both require quite a bit of work (such as a discussion in the comments) to make them understandable and answerable. In normal conditions they would be closed, but, since the bounty has been already promised, they cannot be closed till the bounty expiration (probably a week from now).

Wouldn't it be better, if one could vote to close bounty question, provided that the bounty is reimbursed to the author, if the question is closed?

  1. Voting to close bountied questions is a feature that has often been requested at mother meta, see e.g. Allow users to vote to close bountied questions. So far it has not been implemented.

  2. Being of "low quality" alone is is not a reason to vote to close a question, it's a reason to downvote it. Being unclear, however, is a close reason.

  3. Bounties can only be offered 2 days after asking a question. If no one votes to close a question during that time period, it's an indication the support for closing them may not be as strong as you think it is. If an on-going close review is interrupted by a bounty, this is more problematic. In either case, if you think a bountied question should be closed (or at least an on-going close review on it be completed), you can raise a custom moderator flag since moderators can refund bounties.

  • $\begingroup$ 2. By "low quality" I mean "needs details or clarity". Have you looked at the questions linked? $\endgroup$ Jun 23 at 7:16
  • $\begingroup$ @RogerVadim I just wanted to reinforce that there is a difference between "just not a very good question" ("low quality") and "has a specific reason it needs to be closed". I looked at the questions but since they are merely examples to motivate your feature request, I didn't write anything specifically about them in this answer. $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind Mod
    Jun 23 at 7:44
  • $\begingroup$ I am not quite sure in what direction your answer goes: point 1. seems to support my request... but points 2. and 3. seem to go the other way. Also, regarding point 3., a question might be simply overlooked by most users during the 2 pre-bounty days - in fact, bringing attention to a question is half of the rationale for bounty. $\endgroup$ Jun 23 at 7:49
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @RogerVadim I'm not really making an argument for/against here. I would be in favor of your feature request, but as the link in 1. shows, it has not been implemented. 2. is a reminder that "low quality" does not automatically mean "off-topic", i.e. there is not necessarily anything wrong with "low quality" questions being bountied. 3. explains how we work with the status quo (i.e. the feature not being implemented). $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind Mod
    Jun 23 at 7:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To further ACM's last point: this isn't "how we work with the status quo" -- it's the explicit status Quo. This answer, whose author was at the time an SE Community Coordinator, explicitly lays out this answer's point 3 as the recommended course of action. $\endgroup$ Jun 25 at 14:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .