@Wesley no questions under this tag yet. This needs to be changed.

I did not really mean to ask for multiple buttons - I've edited my question to clarify this. I can see how a mandatory requirement for comment fields could be circumvented, but I also cannot imagine a situation where a closure as "unclear" would give any constructive feedback to the asker if not accompanied by additional information. It seems we've gone great lengths to compose explanations for something like "off topic", yet there is something like "unclear" which comes with no explanation altogether.

Also, I fully agree with you that "leave open" votes should be more powerful than they are now. Requiring additional close votes for each "leave open" vote should be able to fix the major flaws of the review close queue.

I'v always felt that the "leave open" votes are simply too weak to be able to stand against the close votes. This might be different if "Leave open" votes were automatically converted to "reopen" votes once a question has been closed. Currently, questions tend to be closed quickly but only reopened hesitantly and I think it is a pity if we get proper questions close-voted and the respective users pissed off in the process.

@Wesley the point I tried to make is that "unclear" without specifying the part which is unclear simply does not carry enough information so the question could be acted upon. Also, it seems to see some abuse as "I have no idea what you're talking about, go away". As it stands, I cannot see the benefit of having this close reason in the list.

For the record: the question is not mine, but thanks for editing it anyway - it is in a much better readable shape now.

For me, the all-time rep league stats page is saying "200+ | 6,415". It's not much, but the others seem to be anonymous users. I would think the active base of regular SF users is << 200, so it is not surprising that we do not see many votes.

Oh, I see. So they probably rejected my flags requesting question migration out of lazyness. I have read the reason "migration target has been removed" twice and assumed they were really unable to do it.

It should be noted that migrations from Stack Overflow to Server Fault seem to have been disabled entirely, so not even moderators are able to do a migration. In this special case, the question has been closed on Stack Overflow with the specific reason that it would be on-topic on ServerFault. So we had the migrations disabled but now they're pointing fingers at us and encouraging people to cross-post.

@voretaq7 if it is generalized to "what are some advantages", it becomes subjective, no longer a real problem and thus off-topic.

@TheCleaner you always can sanitize manually before uploading by running it through a netexpect script or tcprewrite, but obviously, it would be more convenient to have this functionality in Cloudshark itself. As of now, there seems to be no such functionality.

Done. <!-- blah -->

I forgot the most important point - if we had Cloudshark integration, we would be able to provide even more valuable advice on @KyleBrandt 's sophisticated networking questions.