Timeline for Are we Going down hill?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 8:26 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Apr 8, 2014 at 13:40 | comment | added | Sam Goldberg | I first came to this site with a lot of enthusiasm and interest. I left feeling annoyed/discouraged. The overwhelming getstalt of this site is judgmentalism (down-votes, closing interesting questions, like this one What does C do better than D. The constant preoccupation with scope is actually driving people away. Today, I came back to site for first time in about 6 months (maybe more), through link on a Google search (rarely happens)--of course, it's a closed question. The site is becoming irrelevant. | |
| Sep 17, 2012 at 16:08 | comment | added | Rachel | @DeveloperDon Thanks, I did try that for a while with meta questions, but it didn't seem to make a difference. And personally, I feel its gotten worse since I posted this. Sure there's been changes since February - more users, more posts, more closures, and many more deletions. You can click on the links by each graph to re-run them with semi-current numbers (as of the last SE data dump), but the data dumps don't include deleted questions and I've noticed a lot of deletions in the past few months (I think someone realized they could improve their close rate in Data.SE by deleting questions) | |
| Sep 15, 2012 at 5:44 | comment | added | DeveloperDon | Cool graphs and insightful analysis. Let me suggest that it is the nature of a meritocracy to concentrate power rather than to become more inclusive. Will and Ariel Durant write about this in their histories. Thought leaders are all around us, with powerful ideas seeking receptive soil. I would encourage you to not throw up your hands, but to push for some method of welcoming and more satisfactorily initiating new participants. I hope you feel like there has been some improvement since February. | |
| May 11, 2012 at 16:10 | comment | added | JohnMcG | Indeed, it seemed to be motivated mainly by the ASCII equivalent raised eyebrow (or maybe hairy eyeball) from Joel meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/a/3414/12230 | |
| May 10, 2012 at 23:44 | comment | added | Jim G. | As far as I know, the scope change was not motivated or influenced by consensus opinion. | |
| May 10, 2012 at 17:09 | history | edited | Rachel | CC BY-SA 3.0 | The Closed/Open graph isn't that helpful since it only shows closed/open questions at a point in time, so added graph of post history as well |
| May 10, 2012 at 16:54 | history | edited | Rachel | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Realized I was including answers in the "new questions asked" graph and query |
| May 10, 2012 at 16:27 | comment | added | Rachel | The last edit added a link to a question that finally made me understand the extent of the scope change. Since this answer has been getting a lot of views/votes lately, I wanted to add the link to help others understand the scope change too. I don't care what SE does with the site anymore, and only really stick around because I like helping the people who don't understand the site. If you guys ever get around to changing the name/tagline of the site to match the scope, I'll have no reason to hang around. And no, the scope change was not a consensus among the Programmers community. | |
| May 10, 2012 at 16:03 | comment | added | user8 | Rachel, regarding your latest edit: seriously, stop trying to rewrite history to further your own vendetta against the site. The site's scope was changed with community consensus, and no amount of twisting my—or anyone else's—answers makes that untrue. If you hate the site and what it's become so much, please just go away already and create your own message board with your own vision of what a site should be. | |
| May 10, 2012 at 15:39 | history | edited | Rachel | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Wanted to reference the major changes to scope and link to the history behind them since this answer is still getting views/votes |
| Apr 11, 2012 at 6:03 | comment | added | James Anderson | Notice that while the number of up-votes goes down the number of close votes has risen steadily. I have always maintained that the gap between what is an appropriate StackOVerflow question and what is considered Off_Topic here is pretty small and shrinking all the time. | |
| Apr 9, 2012 at 16:45 | history | edited | Rachel | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Wanted to add perma-links to Data.SE queries to make monitoring these queries easier for myself |
| Feb 21, 2012 at 2:25 | comment | added | Jim G. | @maple_shaft: I'm not interested in throwing the baby out with the bath water. Even with its flaws, I still enjoy Programmers.se. | |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 19:13 | comment | added | maple_shaft Mod | Well it seems that smack-exchange.com is still an available domain name! Act quickly folks ;-) | |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 18:56 | comment | added | Rachel | @maple_shaft I would love to if I had the time to devote to it. I loved the idea of P.SE as a place for programmers to gather and learn from each other, however I feel the value of this site, especially to new programmers, went down when the FAQ was changed to focus on software development instead of programmers, and the rules started getting strictly enforced. The suggestion of a new SE site for programmers has been raised on meta multiple times, but Area51 closed it as a duplicate to P.SE. | |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 18:36 | comment | added | maple_shaft Mod | @Rachel If you feel there is a gap then start your own Q/A site, heck, I will join :) I just hope that Atwood and Spolsky haven't patented the idea of community driven Q&A sites. I can see it now, smack-exchange.com | |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 18:05 | comment | added | Rachel | @JimG. You give me hope :) I wouldn't be this active on meta if I didn't feel that there are a lot of users who agree with me, but who don't have a voice - either because they don't know what to do about it or have just given up already. | |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 18:00 | comment | added | Jim G. | @Rachel: Let me be clear - I agree with you! :) | |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 17:49 | history | edited | Rachel | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 243 characters in body |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 17:35 | comment | added | Rachel | @maple_shaft I'm aware of that and do the same. I was just pointing out that the majority of meta users disagree with me, and I think the people who agree with me are no longer interested in P.SE since I rarely see them around anymore. And sadly, if more people vote to show their disagreement then agreement, nothing gets done. Even if I do get positive votes, such as renaming the site or changing the FAQ(16up, 8 down), nothing gets done because nobody bothered to post an answer of support so the top answer is "it doesn't matter" | |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 17:29 | comment | added | maple_shaft Mod | On meta it does seem acceptable to downvote opinions that you do not agree with, regardless if you present a logical argument based in factual evidence or not. | |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 17:26 | history | edited | Rachel | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 161 characters in body |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 17:22 | comment | added | Rachel | @JimG. I've been subdued into giving in and letting people run the site whatever way they want. I usually get negative feedback when I post stuff like this on meta since the majority of meta users don't seem to agree with me, and since it's their site they can do what they want. | |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 16:57 | comment | added | Jim G. | +1000: Wow! @Rachel - Where have you been? Right on the money! | |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 16:37 | history | edited | Rachel | CC BY-SA 3.0 | edited body |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 16:19 | comment | added | maple_shaft Mod | I agree about being hesitant to close vote questions especially for these questionable fit ones. If I am unsure I will sometimes flag a moderator to take a look at it rather than vote. We shouldn't be so quick to close things, especially if it is close to that line of what is offtopic. | |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 16:03 | history | edited | Rachel | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 483 characters in body |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 15:53 | comment | added | Rachel | @maple_shaft You're welcome :) I disagree that it's a dead end - dba.SE already changed their name once and are trying to do it again. But that said, change the scope of the FAQ to stop limiting questions to JUST software development questions and allow questions about programmers as well, since that's what most people think this site is about when they come here. Also, don't be so hasty with your close votes (especially moderators!), particularly when something might land in that magical "All careers" circle | |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 15:44 | comment | added | maple_shaft Mod | Thanks for the Doom and Gloom answer ;-) Now considering that changing the site name is a political dead-end, do you have any suggestions to improve this and attract new users? | |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 15:31 | history | answered | Rachel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |