Timeline for Let's have an explicit triage system for questions from new users
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
39 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| May 24, 2018 at 22:25 | comment | added | amWhy | And I have good reason to believe that the huge number of answerers that regularly answer low quality content will, under help/improve and triage, become more motivated to participate in the added work. | |
| May 24, 2018 at 22:21 | comment | added | amWhy | I read it, @Shog9. (I just caught your response to me today!) Very helpful. It's now three years later (since the linked post was written). Can I assume that by and large the triage/help and improvement on SO has been, by and large, successful? I think there is a will and a way to make this work on math.se. We've had a number of recent meta posts about something akin to triage; a recent meta post was asking desperately for a more streamlined way of handling low-quality questions. There are also a good number of dedicated reviewers of the current queues. | |
| May 8, 2018 at 22:14 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | See my answer here, @amWhy - it's possible, but it'd be a bit of work. Not just dev work, but a substantial amount of time and effort from the community on Math.SE. We should think very carefully before moving in that direction. | |
| May 6, 2018 at 18:32 | comment | added | amWhy | I will return within 24 hours to clean up these comments which are off topic to the given post here. Just hoping to get input/support, and/or warnings about what is possible, what is not, and what sort of criteria must be met, hoping at least one proposal is possible (i.e., triage). | |
| May 6, 2018 at 18:30 | comment | added | amWhy | Anyway, it may be premature to ask for your input. But thought you might want to know some of the ideas percolating at MSE on meta to help deal with (1) too many homework style questions; (2) too many rep-farmers who dominate most answering to the extent newer users wanting to answer are a bit shut out. | |
| May 6, 2018 at 18:28 | comment | added | amWhy | @Shog9 Feel free to delete this belated comments (to a post from three plus years ago). The one idea: a sort of triage for all posts from new users (of course, definition of new user is crucial), which need to be approved/pass/ clear triage hurdles, or else be improved to do so; the second idea (today, a day later): a rate limit for answerers, consistent, say, with the rate limit for questions. This I don't think has had precedence on SE; I think the idea is great, but I'd rather invest in a proposal for MSE that will help improve the quality incoming questions, prior being answerable. | |
| May 6, 2018 at 0:03 | comment | added | amWhy | @Shog9 Could such a triage be feasible for mathematics.stackexchange? See this meta.math.se post: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/28372/…, and also note mixedmath$\diamond$'s answer here, particularly under "Proposals to Improve the site". | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/ | |
| Dec 10, 2014 at 19:05 | answer | added | Brythan | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 10, 2014 at 12:46 | history | edited | gnat | edited tags | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 2:49 | comment | added | user259867 | @rolfl It's on: see Help us test question triage!. | |
| Dec 3, 2014 at 18:22 | comment | added | rolfl | First-Post “No Action Needed” should not count to review stats would be obsolete if this is implemented. Is there an implementation timeframe for this? 6-8 weeks, or 6-8 months? | |
| Nov 11, 2014 at 19:35 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 | formatting kaizen |
| Oct 31, 2014 at 12:48 | answer | added | Sarah | timeline score: 9 | |
| Sep 23, 2014 at 14:29 | comment | added | Duncan Jones | @Shog9 Can you address Travis' comment? I have the same confusion over what the status of the question is. | |
| Jul 30, 2014 at 6:13 | comment | added | Matthieu M. | Note: to avoid racing, you propose exclusive access. This can be quite tricky to implement (coordination required); another solution would simply be to accept the feedback of all those who provide it, regardless of whether you already had the minimum required or not. Or, formulated differently, once the minimum number of answers is reached the post is removed from the queue, but you wait "for a while" (timeout) before the count so that all opinions gathered weigh in. | |
| Jul 24, 2014 at 8:54 | history | edited | user50049 | edited tags | |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 13:14 | comment | added | Rachel | Will the new user see the result of their reviews? | |
| S Jul 16, 2014 at 20:25 | history | suggested | Scott - Слава Україні | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Added quotes for clarity (reviewers who choose abuse should attend Monty Python’s Argument Clinic). Synchronized button text from images. Tweaked grammar and punctuation. Made images links to themselves (because IE doesn’t have “Open image in new tab” functionality). |
| Jul 16, 2014 at 20:06 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 16, 2014 at 20:25 | |||||
| Jul 16, 2014 at 19:57 | comment | added | Travis J | What is the new user doing while this process is taking place? Is their question available in the wild during the process? Is it hidden until its fate is determined? | |
| Jul 16, 2014 at 18:25 | answer | added | David FullertonStaffMod | timeline score: 32 | |
| Jul 16, 2014 at 0:25 | history | edited | Shog9StaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | too many pieces; add a directory |
| Jul 16, 2014 at 0:12 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | That's something entirely different, @HostileFork. We do desperately need to redesign /questions/ask as well though. FWIW, some of the "magic" bits may come sooner... | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 23:15 | comment | added | HostileFork says dont trust SE | While I like it and generally agree with you on site "manifesto" type issues, it sounds a bit complicated. Perhaps my way-simpler system might be given a trial first, to see if it helped any? | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 20:28 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | I like the proposal because it sounds like a better version of the current system. I wonder why there is a 15 minutes waiting time now or why the same review is shown to more than one reviewer or why there is an incentive to click as fast as possible on "I'm done" (isn't there a minimal waiting time that is big enough to discourage such behavior). All in all many of these things sound like obvious steps that should be taken. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 16:39 | comment | added | Flexo - Save the data dump | Triage and action funnel sounds great. For the improved feedback point I don't think more audits is the answer since they tend to feel fake mostly and annoy the people it depends on. Showing people where they were outliers without punishing them, for their real reviews seems like a better idea. (Maybe just if they clicked "looks OK" and most others disagreed). | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 14:09 | answer | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | timeline score: 16 | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 14:04 | comment | added | Servy | With respect to "Each review task should be shown to only one reviewer at a time" I think that's fine, but each reviewer shouldn't be able to "lock" more than one review at a time, otherwise you encourage the behavior seen in other queues of opening up a dozen tabs each with a different review to hold a lock on all of them while you review each in turn. That along with the obvious timeout so that someone can only hold onto a lock for so long. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 13:39 | comment | added | doppelgreener | @Shog9 Could you clarify when a question goes from Triage -> Welcome, or more specifically, when it leaves Triage, and when it enters Welcome? (Does it enter both simultaneously? I might have made a false assumption that it goes from one to the other.) There's mention of dequeueing here, and it going to another queue or other actions happening. It's not clear if dequeueing from Triage always means it'll go to Welcome (no matter how it left, with the exception of Abuse, which is unstated but I'm making an assumption there) | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 6:03 | answer | added | doppelgreener | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 5:26 | history | edited | Shog9StaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | wrong queue |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 5:12 | answer | added | user163250 | timeline score: 26 | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 3:27 | comment | added | Andy | Will new users that have the association bonus be affected by this? I think they should be, but it's mentioned that only users with less than 10 rep have posts in the New user queue. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 3:22 | comment | added | bjb568 | Looks ok will enable the delete vote button? Wat? | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 3:17 | comment | added | ɥʇǝS | This doesn't look so bad at first pass. Thank you for putting a lot of thought into this. I'm going to let it sink in before adding too much feedback, but something that strikes me right away is the "two steps" factor. That is over complicated. Any particular reason for that? I must admit I don't have a better solution at the moment, but I'm thinking about it. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 2:48 | history | asked | Shog9StaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |