Timeline for If more users could vote, would they engage more? Testing 1 reputation voting on some sites
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 24, 2023 at 16:19 | history | edited | Ingo Steinke | CC BY-SA 4.0 | remove the unconstructive comment about my personal perception of SO's status |
| Sep 24, 2023 at 16:18 | comment | added | Ingo Steinke | @zcoop98 I agree and I will remove the unconstructive comment about my personal perception of SO's status. | |
| Sep 24, 2023 at 5:45 | history | rollback | user3840170 | Rollback to Revision 1 | |
| Sep 21, 2023 at 17:29 | history | edited | D.W. | CC BY-SA 4.0 | deleted 61 characters in body |
| Sep 20, 2023 at 22:01 | comment | added | zcoop98 | Questioning is always welcome, but calling SO past its prime isn't very constructive. Answering comes before commenting because Q&A is the most important content on the site (commenting is secondary). Edits needing 6+ chars and the queue size go hand in hand– the limit is there to help cut down on tiny edits clogging the queue (more than already happens), and once you hit 2k reputation the restriction goes away (on each site). The queue being full is a more complicated issue, since reviewing is managed by the community... I think incentives should be greater, but it's a tough problem to solve. | |
| Sep 20, 2023 at 21:51 | history | answered | Ingo Steinke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |