# Invalid close votes on this C++ parsing question

I'm looking at this question. It has 3 close votes at the moment, but they are likely all invalid.

The close reasons are "code not included or broken code", which is not the case. I have compiled and run the code and it works correctly as far as I can tell. The other close votes are for "hypothetical code, pseudocode, or non-original code." I can't speak to whether the code is original or not, but it is not hypothetical and not pseudocode. As mentioned, I have run it and it appears to work for at least a simple file with a single record. I didn't have time to construct a more complicated file, so it's possible it breaks with more records, but it's not completely broken.

I hate to see newbies turned off because of overzealous close votes. Anything we can do in this situation?

The biggest problem with this question in my opinion is that it is unclear. It consists of a big code block that also includes the description of what it does.

You could add a comment and suggest improvements to the question, here's a template I often use:

Your question currently leaves some things to be desired.
I'd recommend taking a look at
[Simon's Guide to posting a good question](https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6429/31562).
In particular, you could improve {todo}.


In this case, the formatting of the question could be improved, and it could be stated in the question whether or not it has been tested and what the outcome of that is.

• These are great suggestions, and I agree that there are problems with the question, possibly even close-vote-worthy problems – just not for the reasons of the existing close votes, as far as I can tell. Do we have a policy on how to handle incorrect close vote reasons? – user1118321 Feb 18 '18 at 19:16
• @user1118321 I think the best approach is to comment on the question and say "I don't see why this question is being voted to closed for the current reasons" and then later on vote to reopen it if it does get closed. – Simon Forsberg Feb 18 '18 at 19:20