I would like to ask moderators to reopen the post How to load a raster layer at the top of the QGIS ToC?, which is marked as duplicated of Sort layers in QGIS table of contents?.

What is the first post about?

Loading a raster layer at the top of the QGIS ToC, regardless of the active layer. There is a QGIS API (exposed in the layer tree) method for accomplishing this.

What is the second post about?

Sorting a bunch of layers when they are loaded. Actually, the accepted and most voted answer deals with sorting existing (already loaded) layers, i.e., moving layers around. Currently, there is no way from the QGIS API to do what the original question intends to do.

First post author's opinion:

The author of the first post answered @underdark's suggestion. He read the second post and asked for a direct method of achieving what he wanted, instead of creating groups before loading layers, as the answer to the second post suggests.

Who will answer the first post if it's reopened?

I already have an answer for the first post, you can read it here. Please observe how this answer is different from the answer to the second post.

I flagged the first post a month ago hoping it would be reopened. Someone declined the flag and told me he/she would not reopen it. That's why I'm writing this post, to ask the community.

Please don't ask me to wait for 5 people to vote in order to reopen the post. That is a bit unfair in my opinion, since the topic is not very popular (even the answer to the second post has "only" 5 votes while the post has 1.6k views). Moreover, arguments on how both posts differ should be enough to reopen it.

What do you community think about it? Should moderators reopen the first post and allow me to post a proper answer to it?

  • And the reason for the downvote is...? Commented Jan 29, 2015 at 3:32

2 Answers 2


I've clarified the question title and afterwards reopened the question.

Along PolyGeo's lines, I would like to encourage everyone to help improve questions - especially by clarifying the question titles. Very often, the titles are too generic to be of any help even. This combined with a lack of clarification from the side of the original author can be a reason to close a question rather than have it floating in the system in an unclear state.


I am not planning to try and judge whether or not the first (later) question has been correctly made a duplicate of the second (earlier) question.

However, I will offer some procedural advice.

If you think the first question is not a duplicate of the second, then you are at liberty to edit the first question to make clear why you do not think that to be the case. I recommend that you do this as an improvement to the clarity of the question, rather than as a comment within the question.

That edit, which I think will need to be approved at your current reputation, will trigger it being moved into the re-open queue, and if it reaches a moderator before five other reviewers, and the question can be clearly seen as no longer representing a duplicate, then it should be re-opened instantly.

In addition, I have just re-examined the flag you made on 17 Dec 2014 and can see that I was the moderator that declined it with a reason of other:

declined - I've declined this flag because there are no comments against the question to garner support for its re-opening. If you state your case there then 5 re-open votes could follow

I would have written that because you were asking for a technical judgement as part of a flag. So that we make as many of the technical calls correctly as possible it is always best to have those discussions held in the open rather than "behind" flags. Flags are meant to be the tools of last choice, to bring in the human exception handlers, so the advice I offered was to first make a comment. My mistake, for which I apologise, was not to suggest making an edit, because the procedures are in place to get edited questions smoothly re-opened with five regular votes, or one from a moderator. I think you will be surprised how often, and quickly, questions are re-opened after substantial edits to closed questions. I know that I re-open a question or two most days, and I can understand frustration at a slow re-opening after such an edit or if there had been a few unheeded comments there prior to flagging.

However, for me to have re-opened under the circumstances of that flag would have amounted to an overrule of another moderator who was far better placed than I to make the original call of duplicate. If there had been some comments/edits on the question then I may have had something to bring to the other moderator(s) attention but none had been made and you did not ping me or anyone when you added a comment after the flag was declined so I remained oblivious to it until your question here.

The main thing is that the question has now been improved and has been re-opened.

  • Thanks for your suggestions. Even though I can edit the first post, I think this (meta) is the best scenario to discuss it. I actually explained why both questions are different when flagging it, I think some people could read such explanation, but it didn't help. For reference, this is the response I got for such flag: "declined - I've declined this flag because there are no comments against the question to garner support for its re-opening. If you state your case there then 5 re-open votes could follow, " So did I, but waiting for such 5 votes is a bit unrealistic in my opinion. Commented Jan 25, 2015 at 4:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .