<p>This is misleading in so far as it implies that closing is always and only done by a moderator. On the contrary, <strong>closing as unclear is often done by non-moderators without any moderator intervening</strong>. Then a consensus of five high-reputation users is needed. </p>

<p>The point otherwise is well taken: <strong>"appears unclear to me" does not mean "is unclear to everyone"</strong>: it could be sufficient that one competent person understands it and can answer. And judgments are fallible. </p>

<p>I would argue, however, that present principles and practices are about right. If anything, we need to work harder at identifying unclear questions (more generally, questions that aren't good enough) and either getting them improved or closing them down. </p>

<p>First, <strong>deciding that a question is unclear is often much easier than understanding what the question is</strong>. Without trying to be exhaustive, here are some common examples. </p>

<ul>
<li><p>The question boils down to "What should I do with my dataset?" but that and the underlying problem are too vaguely described to allow good advice. </p></li>
<li><p>The question is too brief and cryptic to be clear. </p></li>
<li><p>Presentation is just too messy to attract all but the most noble readers. </p></li>
</ul>

<p>Second, <strong>the gentle model -- just leave it there; someone may understand -- is not nearly as kind as it seems</strong>. </p>

<ul>
<li><p>It is in the original poster's best interests to get prompt and decisive feedback on the question. They can then try to improve it. If they don't, and/or if they get a negative impression of CV, that's unfortunate in some senses, but keep reading. If they can, a much better question is much more likely to get a good answer. </p></li>
<li><p>It is in nobody else's interests that CV is cluttered with questions that no one understands -- or wants to answer. Indeed, this is true already! The fallacy here is that CV is a helpline in which ideally every questioner and every question deserves an answer. Not so; the ideal is to build up a site with an archive of good, distinct, well-answered questions. Every question is a candidate for that status, but many questions fail. </p></li>
</ul>

<p>Third, <strong>there are enough checks and balances to correct over-zealous voting to close</strong>. Needing 5 non-moderator votes has already been mentioned.  </p>

<ul>
<li><p>The SE model does tend to mean that people with vote to close privilege have done enough around the site to have read lots of questions and answered many. That doesn't rule out puzzling votes to close, but no system is perfect. </p></li>
<li><p>Answering a question is the best way to show that someone understands it -- so long as they do understand it! Guessing wildly and guessing wrong won't help. </p></li>
<li><p>Do your bit by editing a question, or proposing edits, that make it clearer. Sometimes just a little care and attention can tip the balance. It could be something as simple as a better title. </p></li>
<li><p>Comment in threads where you think voting to close is wrong. </p></li>
<li><p>A vote to close brings a thread to the attention of high-reputation users who are happy to disagree with each other if some see merit in a question. In this sense a vote to close as unclear from a non-moderator is no more than "this seems unclear to me; do others agree?". </p></li>
</ul>
