user27148: Would we rather have a close/reopen vote threshold lower than 5?

Recently, Stack Overflow experimented with and decided to change the threshold for close/reopen votes from 5 to 3.
They found an increased efficiency without measured negative effects. The change has also been tested on smaller sites, which may benefit even more because it may take a long time for enough experienced users to review the question and find consensus.
The downside, discussed on other Metas, is that aggressive close-voting from particular community members may carry more weight with a reduced threshold than it would otherwise.
See also:
https://webapps.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4687/cancelling-election-lets-try-something-else-testing-three-vote-question-clos
https://diy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1478/can-we-get-the-close-vote-threshold-lowered-to-3
https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/655/results-added-testing-single-vote-closure-on-hardware-recs
for some discussion on other meta sites.

Other related meta posts (and please feel free to edit in others as seen fit):
Inadequate moderation by the community
New moderators, please be more reserved with your close hammer

I've posted my own answer, but of course other opinions and perspectives are strongly welcomed.

user27148: Yes: we should try a reduced threshold of 3 votes
In the last moderator election, one of the questions was about moderator use of the unilateral close vote. I think the general consensus has been that it's best to let the community handle whatever is possible for the community to handle, and yet sometimes the moderators have to step in to prevent an accumulation of questions that linger in the queue without a full 5 votes and either time out or attract poor answers.
It seems to me like changing the threshold would help a lot here - I would certainly drastically reduce my own use of the close-vote if the threshold were changed.
(see also New moderators, please be more reserved with your close hammer and especially AliceD's speculation about discouragement among voters in the community)

user16866: UPDATED ANSWER -- 2 years later (May 2021):
Dropping vote-to-close thresholds has been a topic discussed across many SE sites for years. As of May 2021, there's now a formal effort to test minimizing the threshold to 3 votes across the SE network. The 45-day 3-vote test will occur on 13 sites (Not Biology) throughout May and June 2021. We'll await the results and future updates...
Here is the META post about this test:
Testing three-vote close and reopen on 13 network sites

user22057: This answer is in the nature of a reflection, with a suggestion that we try to accumulate more information on which to make a decision. To provide a one-liner:
We should determine how difficult it is to find 5 votes to close an off-topic question on SE Biology, and drop the requirement to 3 votes if the barrier is too high.
We are scientists. We are used to taking decisions based on evidence, but at the moment I think there is insufficient to do so. I wonder whether there may be, on average, too few people who have enough privilege to vote to close that actually view most questions. But I don’t know. So,

What proportion of questions are viewed by fewer than 100 people?
How many of the viewers of such questions have the 3000 reputation needed to vote to close?
Of the questions that are closed, how many are done without a moderator short-circuiting the closure procedure?
What are the numbers like if you take out the obvious personal medical and spam questions?

It strikes me the only people likely to have any of this info are the mods. Looking at the users who have increased their reputation this year (as a surrogate for activity) I would estimate that not more than 20 have enough reputation to vote to close. Given that people have interests in different biological fields — I never look at natural history questions or those on physiology — this seems quite low, and is possibly the reason that, in my opinion, a lot of poor questions do not get winnowed out.

user16866: NO: we should stick to the current threshold of 5.
I have noticed wayy too many circumstances in which a question was being voted to be closed by 2-3 users inappropriately (i.e., the close votes were unfounded/not supported or the wrong close reason was chosen). Reasons for these inappropriate VTCs range from novice voters, rushed voting, malicious voting, and difference of opinion. By reducing the close-vote requirement, we will undoubtedly close more questions that do not fit the description for being closed. 
We have two current problems on this SE site: (1) lack of review tasks being performed by current community members, and (2) decline in engaged users (+ an overall drop in visits overall!). I think this current VTC proposal is indirectly trying to account for these issues. 

A 3rd issue is that the overall quality of posts has declined sharply in the last 2-3 years. I (among others) still hold posts to a higher standard based on older expectations of this community (i.e., one for scientists). Truthfully, the community has shifted much more toward consisting of novices and students here asking simple questions. At some point, our expectations just can't outweigh the masses asking the questions... [I digress...]

However, I don't think the close-vote proposal will have the intended effect. The root of our problem is community engagement. By changing the VCT threshold we would not be changing that engagement level. Instead, we would be allowing decisions for the whole community to be made by an [even fewer] select active individuals. 
In summary:
We have a community engagement problem on Bio.SE (perhaps an irreversible one), but I don't think the current proposal will fix that root issue. Instead, such a proposal will just give more closing power to the select individuals (<1% I'm sure of all users) who do vote. I'm afraid that such "power" would come off as a form of elitism as it does on some other SE sites, and may even result in a further decline in community engagement. 

27148: <p><strong>Would we rather have a close/reopen vote threshold lower than <em>5</em>?</strong></p>

<hr>

<p>Recently, Stack Overflow <a href="https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/391832/we-re-lowering-the-close-reopen-vote-threshold-from-5-to-3-for-good">experimented with and decided to change</a> the threshold for close/reopen votes from 5 to 3.</p>

<p>They found an increased efficiency without measured negative effects. The change has also been tested on smaller sites, which may benefit even more because it may take a long time for enough experienced users to review the question and find consensus.</p>

<p>The downside, discussed on other Metas, is that aggressive close-voting from particular community members may carry more weight with a reduced threshold than it would otherwise.</p>

<p>See also:</p>

<p><a href="https://webapps.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4687/cancelling-election-lets-try-something-else-testing-three-vote-question-clos">https://webapps.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4687/cancelling-election-lets-try-something-else-testing-three-vote-question-clos</a></p>

<p><a href="https://diy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1478/can-we-get-the-close-vote-threshold-lowered-to-3">https://diy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1478/can-we-get-the-close-vote-threshold-lowered-to-3</a></p>

<p><a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/655/results-added-testing-single-vote-closure-on-hardware-recs">https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/655/results-added-testing-single-vote-closure-on-hardware-recs</a></p>

<p>for some discussion on other meta sites.</p>

<hr>

<p>Other related meta posts (and please feel free to edit in others as seen fit):</p>

<p><a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3553/inadequate-moderation-by-the-community">Inadequate moderation by the community</a></p>

<p><a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3930/new-moderators-please-be-more-reserved-with-your-close-hammer">New moderators, please be more reserved with your close hammer</a></p>

<hr>

<p>I've posted my own answer, but of course other opinions and perspectives are strongly welcomed.</p>
 27148: <p><strong>Yes: we should try a reduced threshold of 3 votes</strong></p>

<p>In the last moderator election, one of the questions was about moderator use of the unilateral close vote. I think the general consensus has been that it's best to let the community handle whatever is possible for the community to handle, and yet sometimes the moderators have to step in to prevent an accumulation of questions that linger in the queue without a full 5 votes and either time out or attract poor answers.</p>

<p>It seems to me like changing the threshold would help a lot here - I would certainly drastically reduce my own use of the close-vote if the threshold were changed.</p>

<p>(see also <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3930/new-moderators-please-be-more-reserved-with-your-close-hammer">New moderators, please be more reserved with your close hammer</a> and especially AliceD's speculation about discouragement among voters in the community)</p>
 16866: <p>UPDATED ANSWER -- 2 years later (May 2021):</p>
<p>Dropping vote-to-close thresholds has been a topic discussed across many SE sites for years. As of May 2021, there's now a formal effort to test minimizing the threshold to 3 votes across the SE network. The 45-day 3-vote test will occur on 13 sites (Not Biology) throughout May and June 2021. We'll await the results and future updates...</p>
<p>Here is the META post about this test:
<a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/364007/309922">Testing three-vote close and reopen on 13 network sites</a></p>
 22057: <p>This answer is in the nature of a reflection, with a suggestion that we try to accumulate more information on which to make a decision. To provide a one-liner:</p>
<p><strong>We should determine how difficult it is to find 5 votes to close an off-topic question on SE Biology, and drop the requirement to 3 votes if the barrier is too high.</strong></p>
<p>We are scientists. We are used to taking decisions based on evidence, but at the moment I think there is insufficient to do so. I wonder whether there may be, on average, too few people who have enough privilege to vote to close that actually view most questions. But I don’t know. So,</p>
<ul>
<li>What proportion of questions are viewed by fewer than 100 people?</li>
<li>How many of the viewers of such questions have the 3000 reputation needed to vote to close?</li>
<li>Of the questions that are closed, how many are done without a moderator short-circuiting the closure procedure?</li>
<li>What are the numbers like if you take out the obvious personal medical and spam questions?</li>
</ul>
<p>It strikes me the only people likely to have any of this info are the mods. Looking at the users who have increased their reputation this year (as a surrogate for activity) I would estimate that not more than 20 have enough reputation to vote to close. Given that people have interests in different biological fields — I never look at natural history questions or those on physiology — this seems quite low, and is possibly the reason that, in my opinion, a lot of poor questions do not get winnowed out.</p>
 16866: <p><strong>NO: we should stick to the current threshold of 5.</strong></p>

<p>I have noticed wayy too many circumstances in which a question was being voted to be closed by 2-3 users <em>inappropriately</em> (i.e., the close votes were unfounded/not supported or the wrong close reason was chosen). Reasons for these inappropriate VTCs range from novice voters, rushed voting, malicious voting, and difference of opinion. By reducing the close-vote requirement, we will undoubtedly close more questions that do not fit the description for being closed. </p>

<p>We have two current problems on this SE site: (1) lack of review tasks being performed by current community members, and (2) decline in engaged users (+ an overall drop in visits overall!). I think this current VTC proposal is indirectly trying to account for these issues. </p>

<ul>
<li>A 3rd issue is that the overall quality of posts has declined sharply in the last 2-3 years. I (among others) still hold posts to a higher standard based on older expectations of this community (i.e., one <em>for scientists</em>). Truthfully, the community has shifted much more toward consisting of novices and students here asking simple questions. At some point, our expectations just can't outweigh the masses asking the questions... [I digress...]</li>
</ul>

<p>However, I don't think the close-vote proposal will have the intended effect. The root of our problem is community engagement. By changing the VCT threshold we would not be changing that engagement level. Instead, we would be allowing decisions for the whole community to be made by an [even fewer] select active individuals. </p>

<p>In summary:</p>

<p>We have a community engagement problem on Bio.SE (perhaps an irreversible one), but I don't think the current proposal will fix that root issue. Instead, such a proposal will just give more closing power to the select individuals (&lt;1% I'm sure of all users) who do vote. I'm afraid that such "power" would come off as a form of elitism as it does on some other SE sites, and may even result in a further decline in community engagement. </p>
