Question: I plan to ask about how to restore some defunct human genes. The GULO pseudo gene is the first one I am going to ask about. Should the question maybe be split into several question? The intended question is as follows.

A lot of base pairs in the defunct GULO pseudo gene in humans are missing to make a functional enzyme. 

Should we take a whole gene from a close relative like a strepsirrhine, or maybe just fill in what is missing based on what? 

Which cells should be transfected/infected and how? 

Where should the working gene be put in the genome? Should the defunct gene be kept or replaced?

Transcription levels for the GULO pseudo gene are too low to make enough enzymes to increase ascorbate levels above levels achievable by consumption. How can that be increased?

I am not asking if this is beneficial or not nor about regulatory or ethical questions. Such questions are also meaningful but should be discussed in other questions.

Answer: 
**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.
**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](https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3930/new-moderators-please-be-more-reserved-with-your-close-hammer) and especially AliceD's speculation about discouragement among voters in the community)