2
$\begingroup$

Not long ago, diamond moderators could either "close" a question or put it "on hold" which had exactly the same effect apart from having friendlier verbiage: "On hold" is not yet removed from the privilege pages

For "abandoned" questions, the vast majority of them are "closed" due to (1) the asker not responding to comments, or (2) not visiting the sites for a while.

However there's also a third class of questions in which the asker has simply said that they are no longer interested in the problem, meaning that community members' efforts and energy would be better spent on other unanswered questions (we have a tonne of them!). We've been closing these as "abandoned", even though the asker has responded to comments and has visited the site recently, meaning that they haven't "abandoned" anything, and the close notice has an incorrect description!

In all of the above three cases, the question can be reopened immediately if someone pings one of us with a reason to reopen it (e.g. someone wants to write an answer, or the asker comes back and answers comments, or in the last case mentioned above: the asker could simply become interested in the question again!).

For all cases, "on hold" seems like a better term, and would also sound a lot nicer! It also makes it more clear that this closure is not at all permanent!

Shall we change "Abandoned" to "On hold"?

$\endgroup$

0

You must log in to answer this question.