Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

8
  • 17
    Hi! Good to hear from you. Commented Jun 14, 2023 at 10:57
  • 23
    "The number of answers continued to decrease, although the outflow of questions did not." It is not even clear how this conclusion follows from the evidence that is presented. If you look at the public (25k+) analytics, it is patently obvious that the decrease in the number of questions exactly corresponds to the decrease in the number of answers, down to the smallest of trends. Not only is the number of questions decreasing, which is a confounding variable, but the number of answers is decreasing in a pattern that exactly matches that for questions. Commented Jun 14, 2023 at 11:20
  • 6
    @CodyGray-onstrike Totally agree. data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/1753665#graph I guess that this statement was made either about the segment of 3+ answer givers or about the month prior the post (when the number of questions stopped declining. Commented Jun 14, 2023 at 11:27
  • 1
    It should be noted that the mods also have no clue what their own false positive rate is. Commented Jun 22, 2023 at 22:58
  • 2
    @Era could you please what does this imply? Commented Jun 23, 2023 at 6:51
  • 2
    "the community has been specifically looking for ChatGPT-posts. When we deliberately look for something, we will find much more of it by definition" Careful, because when you go looking for something you might misidentify something else for that. Humans brains are fantastic at finding patterns on random datapoints. Commented Jul 12, 2023 at 15:37
  • 1
    @NicolasChabanovsky It means mods could be doing very well or they could be doing poorly with respect to false positives and they can't distinguish between those two situations from the information available to them. It is natural that they would feel they are doing very well, but they don't actually have evidence for that. Commented Sep 17, 2023 at 16:09
  • * "If the community is fighting something intentionally..." This does not seem to explain the observation made, specifically the observation of a rapid decrease of users who answer 3+ questions per week. You may improve your answer by proposing a testable hypothesis explaining that observation. Commented Jan 20, 2024 at 23:11