<p>As I've started reviewing more this question keeps occurring to me.  In my judgment there are three ordered categories of question quality: <em>should definitely stay open</em>, <em>should definitely be closed</em>, and <em>lies in the gray area</em>.  (I'm sure everyone has the same categories, although the category boundaries will differ.)  The first two are obvious, but some decision rule is required for the third.  Consider a hypothetical new question that may be <em>somewhat</em> (i.e., a gray area case) "ambiguous, vague, incomplete" (etc.) and may be difficult to answer.  My policy in this situation is to give the OP the benefit of the doubt.  In addition, I would probably comment and ask for more details to be provided.  Now consider such a question that is bumped by the community user (for example, but I might also stumble across it via a different route), it has been around for months and has garnered no answers, or no answers worthy of an upvote.  I look at it and wonder if it will ever get a decent answer (it still might).  If I tend to fold the grays into the 'stay open' category for new questions, <strong>is it reasonable to default to 'close' for old questions?</strong>  The danger is that the site seems to have an awful lot of such questions floating around, and this process could easily become fairly assertive and fill up the <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/review-beta/close">close votes queue</a> in the review system.  Another way of putting this is, <strong>do we want to eliminate many of the old, inactive questions that seem to be going nowhere (i.e., no answers or no upvoted answers)?</strong></p>
