# Why was “Get minimum of four and maximum up to a limit” not reopened after the code was fixed?

With enough reason this question was closed for being out of scope.

Meanwhile I gave some advice to the OP and the question seems to be in shape for a re-open vote. I already placed my vote.

I also made question to wait some time before bringing this to meta because I wanted to verify that the re-opening queue was enough to address this scenarios. And by the fact that I am bringing this to meta it seems it isn't.

I advise two more things that should be done when a reopen vote is cast:

Please give credit to the user because he showed effort and now his question is on-topic. If his question fits the community and is a good question it should be reopened. If you are reopening there isn't a reason for not providing a positive vote, effort has been shown.

According to the reopen queue history this question was left closed by three users. Are there still reasons to leave this question closed? Or did they just rush their close vote?

• Normally a regular would just paste a link to the revised post saying "looks ready to reopen!", and that usually alerts all (most?) downvoters and closers :-) – Mathieu Guindon Jun 9 '16 at 18:22
• After Rev 4, the cited question was presented to three users in the Reopen queue. All three voted to leave it closed. – 200_success Jun 9 '16 at 18:23
• @200_success I am not sure if that should let me concerned or not... Could you clarify if there is a reason for that? – Bruno Costa Jun 9 '16 at 18:25
• The question isn't whether the reopen queue is enough; the question is why did 3 users vote to keep it closed when they reviewed it. – Mathieu Guindon Jun 9 '16 at 18:39
• @Mat'sMug I was just looking at a different point of view. Thanks for mentioning it, I'll edit my question accordingly. – Bruno Costa Jun 9 '16 at 18:41
• @Mat'sMug Maybe it's because I never used the queues that much. But why doesn't that question show on my history? – Bruno Costa Jun 9 '16 at 18:52
• Please give credit to the user because he showed effort. It's a code dump. While the question used to be way worse, it's still a lousy question. – Mast Jun 22 '16 at 10:12
• @Mast It's your opinion, I think the description given is enough/nice. Even if it comes from an homework assignment. – Bruno Costa Jun 22 '16 at 12:03

Thanks for bringing this question to attention.

I have run the program and verified that it indeed produces the expected output given the sample input. I have therefore upvoted and reopened the question. I encourage everyone to upvote it as well for the effort that the author has made.

I've also found that the question was an undeclared cross-post from Stack Overflow, and have advised the author to delete the Stack Overflow question.

• The cross-post has been removed. Question is now only at Code Review at +14/-3. – Mast Jun 18 '16 at 6:49

I voted to leave it closed because the revised version removed the problem description that the code was purporting to address. So although the code was updated, it would have earned an "unclear what you're asking" close vote even after the edit. I see it's been edited again since then to restore that vital bit of information. I'd have edited it myself, but it wasn't clear that the removal of the question wasn't intentional, e.g. the code could have been revised to solve a different problem or one with similar but different constraints.

See https://codereview.stackexchange.com/revisions/131188/4 for the version I voted to leave closed.

• I see OP removed the description and I didn't notice. And damn that diff just now I thought I had a bug. – Bruno Costa Jun 9 '16 at 20:49
• Your vigilance is appreciated. What could have been more helpful, though, would be (a) editing the question to restore the deleted text, or (b) leaving a comment, or (c) Skipping the review. – 200_success Jun 9 '16 at 22:17