Timeline for Is there a limit to the number of answers a user can post to one single question?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2020 at 13:09 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 19:23 | comment | added | Vogel612 | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 19:22 | comment | added | ben rudgers | @Vogel612 The edits did not improve the site. They are moderation for the sake of moderation. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 19:21 | comment | added | Vogel612 | The edits were made after 16 hours which is not what I'd call "rapid" and also after the owner of the answers had responded (and been responded to again) as well as after the establishment of a preliminary "Stimmungsbild" (literally "mood picture") | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 19:20 | comment | added | ben rudgers | @Vogel612 I think the rapidity with which the edits were made illustrates the degree to which different is equated with wrong on the site. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 19:20 | comment | added | Vogel612 | @benrudgers I actually don't follow ... Would you mind dropping by in Code Review Chat so we can discuss somewhere not the comments? | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 19:18 | comment | added | ben rudgers | @Vogel612 Oh. Yes, I saw it before. I think the edit was just busy work. I don't think it solved any actual problem. I don't think it improves the internet. I don't think it makes CodeReview better in the short term. I think it reduces the potential for improvement via evolution. I think it makes the site more like one a bulletin board where a lot of energy is spent toward creating insiders and outsiders...something Spolsky and Atwood were trying to avoid by the design of StackExchange. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 19:11 | comment | added | Vogel612 | A moderator deleted two answers and merged them into another answer, using --- to separate the blocks of separate answers. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 19:10 | comment | added | ben rudgers | @Vogel612 I lack the ability to see deleted answers. If the user deleted the answers on their own, then the system works. If a moderator deleted the answers, then that would be evidence to support the opinion that the example is an example of an actual problem. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 19:05 | comment | added | Vogel612 | question: @benrudgers do / did you see the two deleted answers by the same user? | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 18:52 | comment | added | ben rudgers | @Mat'sMug People post answers to help and to get internet points. Getting points is part of what makes the site fun. It is part of what makes the site work. How many points one person gets does not effect how many points another person gets. The purpose of having moderators is not to prevent people from getting points. Pretty much any reasonable answer is probably worth fifty points. Many get zero. It's just internet points. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 18:46 | comment | added | Mathieu Guindon Mod | @janos the harm is also the unfairness of one user obnoxiously posting 5 answers and collecting +50 for one upvote on each, whereas the honest user that makes the effort of properly formatting their multi-point answers and get +10 for one upvote. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 18:43 | comment | added | janos Mod | The harm for me is reduced readability. I find it easier to read one well-structured answer of a user, rather than his thoughts randomly scattered. Not organizing and ordering the review comments looks like a lack of care about readers. To me, the split-answer format is inferior, and not recommended, for the sake of the readers. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 18:42 | comment | added | Peilonrayz Mod | I'd like to point out that this doesn't answer the question. It's not about the specific case - it's just an example point, and the reason I asked. Two of your three points have no relevance IMO to this discussion - I never said there was abuse, and last time I checked there were no votes on their answers. Up or down. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 18:35 | comment | added | ben rudgers | @Mat'sMug Back to my first question. What exactly is the harm here? | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 18:28 | comment | added | Mathieu Guindon Mod | And I believe this behavior could be harming the site, and we're here today to address it. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 18:27 | comment | added | ben rudgers | @Mat'sMug, No the day it harms the site is the day it is a problem that needs to be addressed using the tools that exist to address it. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 18:21 | comment | added | Mathieu Guindon Mod | Sure, except the day it's "proven" that the behavior harms the site, it's too late, we're already doomed. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 18:20 | comment | added | ben rudgers | @Mat'sMug There is no evidence that that is the intent of the answers. More importantly, there is no evidence that that is the effect of the answers. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Iron_Law_of_Bureaucracy | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 18:18 | comment | added | Mathieu Guindon Mod | We're Stack Exchange, a Q&A network. IMO "Flooding" creates the false impression that it's ok to turn Code Review into a discussion forum. I believe that is how the behavior is harmful, intentional abuse or not. CR already deviates quite a bit from SE's Q&A model; what we've been doing for years has worked very well so far, and got our eternal-beta site graduated after months and months and months of efforts. I feel changing the proven Q&A model is dangerous, and threatening. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 18:14 | history | answered | ben rudgers | CC BY-SA 3.0 |