Thoughts... I edited the answer here to note that how close votes age away have changed since that question/answer were posted... editing the answer with the current policy doesn't work because the current policy doesn't answer the question, which is how 100 views is calculated... does that make sense?

@Catija works for me

@rene Though, now I wonder if I should put the note on the question instead of the answer?

why don't you do in both?

Why not!

This is one of those things that a special sort of post notice might be useful... not the historical lock, obviously, but something that says "policy has changed".

I'll just dupe hammer it against that question you linked to

@Catija in theory we could close vote it for no repro

Someone tried to dupe it a long time ago... not sure why that failed... probably... aged away :P

Not all dupes offered by gnat are OK

Yeah, and, arguably, it's not a dupe... if it were, I could just edit the answer to say what the new policy is...

@Catija nope, review

@rene Technically... that's still considered "aging away".

As far as the system is concerned, if I'm understanding what I've been told recently, the system does not differentiate between close votes that have aged away due to lack of review action and have aged away because they were disputed.

@Catija It should matter for the first close voter/flagger. Disputed in review means: I'm not aligned with the community, aged away means: I need to get my priorities straight.

@CrazyIvan I know there's a pretty big lag but I don't think it's that bad...

@CrazyIvan it's too old

at some point we tacked on a date filter to the logic that looks for featured posts.

also... that featured tag was added a month ago. It should be expiring this week anyway.

@rene -shrug-

@Catija I rolled this back. I'd already edited it two years ago when we altered the aging behavior to ignore views after 14 days.

@Shog9 Hmmm... Ok. Should I roll back the one on the question, then?

I guess I'm confused because the 100 views is irrelevant now?

@Catija see edit: meta.stackexchange.com/posts/136989/revisions

@Catija it's not exactly irrelevant.

If a question has, say, 99 views... And someone casts a close vote on it... it'll be 14 days before that vote ages away.

Ah, I see.

If a question has 100 views and a close vote, it only takes 4 days.

So if it gets 100 views in fewer than 14 days, it still matters.

correct

That was the piece I was missing.

or perhaps more importantly, if the vote is cast on a question that already has 100 views, it'll age after 4 days.

So, on a site like A&C, in the older system, the votes would likely never age out.

@Catija quite possibly

On SO, there were tens of thousands of questions that had votes stretching back years

They couldn't reenter close review, they couldn't expire, they just sat there.

Ah, there's such a high volume of questions that, despite the usership, few questions meet 100 views.

lots of questions meet 100 views. And lots of questions don't. The rule of thumb for any scenario on SO is "lots"

But how do people find those questions that maybe should have been closed but never were? Or does SO not care about that as much? It seems like their review queue is pretty huge as it is.

@Catija most of the time, they don't

most of these questions... well, sorta by definition, they aren't getting many views.

a lot of them just get automatically deleted

if you're really dedicated, you can keep voting to close the same question every month and hope that eventually it garners attention in the review queue

@JourneymanGeek meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/360350/…

That's a spammer we pretty regularly nuke + smokey tends to take down

ugh, they're doing the profile thing too?

@JourneymanGeek Who is?

@Catija the testo spammer @Stijn linked