I wish to make a modest proposal on closing/reopening questions. Let me begin by noting that by far the most frequent reviews are Close votes -- almost 37,000, and looking quickly most of the close votes (apart from skipping the question) are to Close a question (about 80% of the time) and only rarely to leave it open. In contrast the review queue to reopen questions only has about 6000 reviews, and again most of these (maybe 80% again) are to leave the question closed, and only a small proportion of the votes are to reopen. My own experience with these queues has been very similar to the overall numbers.
To me this suggests that overall people have been doing a good job of removing unsuitable questions, and only relatively rarely are there borderline questions that are closed. Even when these borderline questions are reexamined by other users, only rarely do they get reopened. The fact that questions get reopened suggests also that some users really like or wish to see the question on this site.
Would it make sense to have a feature whereby a question that has been closed and then reopened is no longer considered for closing again? That is, I am proposing a no "double jeopardy" rule. Added Stefan Kohl in comments has proposed the alternative of requiring more votes in each new close/reopen cycle.
The pros: It seems friendlier to do this, and respect the opinions of others who wish to have a question open. (In my view, it is not symmetrical to want a question closed versus wanting it open.) It will save us the occasional close/open war, which ends up getting heated. Similar arguments came up in What shall we do with stone soup? but nothing concrete seems to have been resolved there.
The cons: Every once in a while one might get irritated by a question so bad that it's hard to understand why five others voted to reopen! I find that there is a question of this sort that I voted to close the second time around; I do feel that I would now prefer to be personally irritated, but let the question stand on general principle. Another con would be that the proposed rule is irreversible (and I am generally wary of irreversible steps) -- this could be mitigated by either having moderators deal with extremely rare situations, or resetting the close/reopen possibilities if a question is edited. Added Stefan Kohl's suggestion to increase the number of close/reopen votes in each cycle, I think, gives a good way to guard against potential abuses.
In any case, I would be curious to hear what people think of this. For my part, I do not intend anymore to vote to close a question if others have reopened it.