Timeline for New UI encourages askers to confirm or dispute duplicate votes
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
42 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Dec 7, 2018 at 20:30 | comment | added | Tezra | @Shog9 I got here after a quest to answer "Why did the SE bot account close an OP's question without their buy in?". I would expect the Community user not to take such drastic action without the OP at least casting their own vote on their own question. (Closed questions on low traffic tags are nearly impossible to reopen, so the apparent rouge bot was alarming) There should be at least some indication that the OP approved this action (or at least, why the bot account is using mod powers to close the question). | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.apple.stackexchange.com/ with https://apple.meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Apr 14, 2015 at 18:25 | comment | added | Andrew Leach | But moderator tools don't say what's happened here either. You can't rely on tooltips; the data should be explicitly available, at least to moderators if not everyone. | |
| Apr 14, 2015 at 18:21 | comment | added | user259867 | @AndrewLeach That's not before I mentioned that. :) Seriously, I think the documentation could be easily improved by adding another bullet item to Community profile: "close duplicate posts with the author's approval". | |
| Apr 14, 2015 at 18:16 | comment | added | Andrew Leach | And before anyone mentions it, some browsers (eg Safari on iPad) do not have onhover and tooltips. | |
| Apr 14, 2015 at 17:56 | comment | added | Andrew Leach | @Shog9 ELU has had its first query about this (a flag, and there's a comment), and mods can't see what happened, even using mod tools. We have to guess that this is what has happened, because [I hope] it's the only way that Community can close as dupe. | |
| Mar 19, 2015 at 21:38 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Surprisingly little confusion here thus far, @yo'. We'll see how it pans out long-term... | |
| Mar 19, 2015 at 9:42 | comment | added | yo' | @Shog9 Get ready for these ones in the next few years: "How can Community close questions?" I got confused by this, and I am one of the people who had seen this announcement and who was aware of the new system. As someone said before: In ideal world, OPs would have more power on the closing of their question, like they have on suggested edits. | |
| Mar 12, 2015 at 3:48 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @Shog9 Ok! I see that I was/am just missing relevant UX considerations. (This also gives some insight into why Community is everywhere—sometimes confusing, but less so than the alternative.) | |
| Mar 12, 2015 at 3:45 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Yes, @SevenSidedDie - I don't want to spend the next few years answering "why was user able to vote on this question" questions with "weeeelll... He kinda didn't, but we put his name on it anyway... Uh..." and "take my name off this you bastards I'LL SUE" demands with "weeeelll... You sorta did..." | |
| Mar 12, 2015 at 3:04 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @Shog9 In all honesty, I think you think I'm suggesting something I'm not, but I'm not sure. Here's the trail: The answer here proposes sticking the name of the "This solved my problem!" clicker in the "marked as duplicate by Alice, Bob, and Clicker" instead of "Alice, Bob, and Community". Shadow Wizard said, no, that would be super-confusing. All I'm saying is that, no, it would not be super-confusing (and would actually be informative). Are we on the same page now? Is that what you're saying no to for UX reasons? | |
| Mar 12, 2015 at 1:18 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Except author deletion is relatively unrestricted, @SevenSidedDie - less restricted than it is for everyone else except moderators - which is why authors are the single largest group of deletionists on the site. Not to go into too much detail here, but similar closing abilities would be open to abuse at worst and superfluous at best. In fact, it's not uncommon today for folks who realize they've asked duplicate questions to just delete them - which they can still do, of course. This is... something else; the two systems are related, but the UX has very different considerations. | |
| Mar 12, 2015 at 1:12 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @Shog9 Yeah, I know stuff could be featured up for this purpose. I'm only pointing to deletion as a convenient counter example to the claim that putting a low-rep user's name on [insert typically-privileged action here] isn't confusing at all, and is actually much more informative. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 23:27 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Got nothing to do with privileges, @SevenSidedDie - we could easily make this a new-user privilege if we wanted to (incidentally, have you seen the full documentation for deletion?) The author is literally not being given the option to close here - the system is closing based on his feedback, but the amount of control he can exercise is extremely limited. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 21:36 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @ShadowWizard New users don't have the delete privilege either, but we let them delete their own questions without putting the Community user's name on it. If that doesn't cause any confusion or problems, I don't see how it would a duplicate-close? | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 13:31 | history | edited | nicael -misses Sha- | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 1 character in body |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 9:04 | comment | added | user56reinstatemonica8 | @Woodface better answers could still be posted on the older question. That's the best result: you don't want two identical questions, one with a good answer, one with a bad/dangerous answer, because then it's 50:50 which one someone finds when googling a problem. Have one with all the answers, and the other as a signpost to that one. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 3:47 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Or as my dad used to say, "Fools seldom differ" @Chipperyman ;-) | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 3:47 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | No they don't, @yo' - unless you restrict this to one, narrowly-defined scenario (as I already stated above) in which they effectively do (although they still cannot actually vote to close in a binding manner). Think about trying to document how close voting works if askers could actually vote in the scenario where this applies - we'd need a decision tree just to explain it - and it'd still miss the point of doing this, which isn't to give askers binding votes but rather use their feedback to speed up closing in cases where we're unlikely to be wrong. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 3:44 | comment | added | Jon | Oh, I didn't realize, my bad. Guess great minds think alike, huh? | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 3:42 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | This is on the bulletin, @Chipperyman. Right now. That's probably how you got here. I'm soliciting suggestions from the folks who actually use it, because... Their opinions are the ones I care about. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 1:28 | comment | added | Jon | Why do changes not go on ux.SE before going live? I feel like if you have a large group of people with experience in UX, many of whom are paid to do it, who are willing to give advice at no cost, you may as well run it by them. It's not like you hide pending changes anyway, even just putting it on the community bulletin would be a good idea. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 23:50 | comment | added | user152859 | @yo' that's not quite the same. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 23:48 | comment | added | yo' | @Shog9 Well, they do have a completely assymetric binding close vote on their questions now. If you paint stripes on a horse, he doesn't become a zebra. He's just a horse with stripes. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 23:46 | comment | added | yo' | @ShadowWizard With your argument, please stop calling edits that a low-rep user approves on his own post as "approved", since the user obviously can't approve edits. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 23:01 | comment | added | user152859 | I agree with @Shog on this, and meant from the beginning users with low rep (<250) sorry for the confusion. (those users are 99.999% of the affected users anyway) | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 22:20 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Although the effect is the same in this (one, narrowly-defined) scenario, question owners do not have binding close votes on their own post - I believe such a feature would likely introduce a great deal of confusion unless also coupled with binding reopen votes, which would of course introduce either an opportunity for abuse or a ton of extra rules for voting. The system is closing the question, not the user who confirmed the duplicate. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 21:14 | comment | added | user259867 | @TylerH I disagree with that. It's not just their question, and the answers are not just for them. If they happen to be satisfied, e.g., with a lousy answer that puts them at risk of SQL injection, that does not mean the site should prevent better answers from being posted. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 20:58 | comment | added | gnat | @BradleyDotNET agree, that's only closing-half of it (not that I complain) | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 20:57 | comment | added | BradleyDotNET | @gnat Thats not quite a dupehammer. You don't have insta-reopen as well :) | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 20:35 | comment | added | Tim | Yeah, if you realise it is a duplicate why not? And flagging as dupe is better than deleting. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 20:26 | comment | added | TylerH | @ShadowWizard Even users without the close vote privilege should be able to close their own question in a perfect world. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 20:20 | history | edited | nicael -misses Sha- | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 140 characters in body |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 20:15 | history | edited | nicael -misses Sha- | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 140 characters in body |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 20:08 | history | edited | nicael -misses Sha- | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 233 characters in body |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 20:00 | history | edited | nicael -misses Sha- | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 233 characters in body |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 18:00 | comment | added | gnat | @ShadowWizard askers (having privilege to flag/vote close) have unilateral dupehammer on their own questions, I just tested how it works | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 17:23 | comment | added | nicael -misses Sha- | @Sha OK about the first one, but think about the second one. I can vote to close my question as dupe and then click "that solved my problem". E.g.: meta.apple.stackexchange.com/questions/2324/… | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 14:01 | comment | added | user152859 | No and no. 1 - users without close privilege can't really vote to close, so it would be misleading, confusing and wrong. The OP is not really voting to close, it's done by the new process. 2 - wrong, close vote cast by OP is not binding, it's just a single close vote. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 13:51 | history | answered | nicael -misses Sha- | CC BY-SA 3.0 |