This has been tinkered with on SO and several SE sites. SO has now gone to 3 permanently and I noted this Shog9 comment
Other sites can have whatever threshold is most appropriate for them
We are "other sites".
There's only 6 or so regular reviewers in general (of the non-mod variety anyways), and closure tends to be a pain. Lowering the threshold to 3 would ensure faster community response time.
I support this proposal to lower close vote count to 3.
I tend to vote for closure fairly aggressively for a few reasons:
Many poorly-composed posts are abandoned even when the OP is prodded for information or clarity. Folks who aren't willing to write a good question tend to be less likely to follow up in any way.
Because even if the OP does come back and fix things up, I've set the process in motion. This prompts others to evaluate the question and whether it should be closed. I trust that they don't jump on my bandwagon, but evaluate independently.
Because I often revisit those questions and take followup action. If it sits a few days and no one else agrees with my vote, or if the OP has fixed it, or if useful discussion has resulted, I may retract.
I really don't know what the habits of most other active users are, but I think a reduction to three close votes would result in things being closed too hastily. I could be convinced to change my routine if the community decides otherwise, and I'd be less likely to preemptively vote to close. I'll roll with it.
Instead, how can we increase non-moderator moderation activity? There are plenty of higher-rep users who don't bother to vote for closure because either they don't know they can or lack the confidence to do so. We could probably help with that.
Although I agree with the sentiment and reasoning I don't think 3 is a good number. There are a number of people who regularly answer questions that tend to close things that they didn't answer as "off-topic" when the question clearly isn't. We know who they are.
So if things can be closed easier there needs to be mechanisms to reopen quicker too.
I was initially in favor of 3 votes. Seems logical on a small site. However, see Exhibit A:
Gas oven won't maintain temperature it is set on
As of right now, 2 close votes.
One close vote is "Needs details or clarity" - arguably it does need details or clarity. Debatable whether closing a question is a good way to get details or clarity, but that is a larger SE problem, being discussed on alternative sites under development like Codidact But it definitely "fits" within the StackExchange context.
The other close vote is "off-topic because operation of major appliances is listed as off-topic" The problem though is that if you read the question it should be fairly clear that the problem is the oven is not operating as expected - i.e., something is broken. So it isn't "operation" but rather "repair" or "troubleshooting".
Now anyone can make a mistake plus these definitions are often open to interpretation. But with only 3 votes to close, that would mean just one more quick click by someone and poof it is closed. And then we likely lose a new user. Hopefully OP would then go on to ask someplace else and hopefully get the right answer (whatever that may be, as we need details first to figure it out for them). But then again, they may end up someplace else and not get the right answer. And they likely won't come back when they have other questions (with more details and on-topic).
Bottom line: I think 3 votes is too few for our site.
