Timeline for Great Expectations... or, at least, user expectations
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
34 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/ | |
| Mar 17, 2017 at 8:26 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Apr 30, 2016 at 16:28 | comment | added | user3822370 | I'm personally sick of this community. I can't ask 1 question without being put on hold or closed for being too broad. And neither can 80% of the related questions that show up. So the problem is this place, not the users. The fact that my posts are flagged instantly tells me mods don't even read the questions. | |
| Mar 16, 2016 at 21:20 | answer | added | soru | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 12, 2016 at 21:24 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Mar 12, 2016 at 21:10 | comment | added | user174739 | @DocBrown Actually, I'll just add links to those questions in my conclusion post. | |
| Mar 12, 2016 at 20:51 | comment | added | user174739 | @DocBrown Post an answer referencing your Meta question and Rachel's Meta question and I'll accept it as the answer, I think those two questions combined form the correct next steps from this one. | |
| Mar 12, 2016 at 9:36 | comment | added | Doc Brown | I invite everybody to have a look at my meta question concerning the outcome of this survey. | |
| Mar 11, 2016 at 19:49 | comment | added | Andy | I think the biggest problem with this site for new users is that it is not really for new programmers. Unlike, let's say, SO, a new programmer may come there with quite a trivial but valid question and people help him. This site is more about design and architecture itself and to know what an architectural/design question is, to be able to distinguish it from a code-request, you need to have certain background in programming. I think newcomers don't really see the purpose of this site. | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 21:41 | comment | added | Rachel | Personally I would favor making the scope more about "programmers" if this site is keeping the site name of "Programmers.SE". I think the (highly upvoted) answer here explains that I mean. I would want to keep our current quality standards though, and make sure we don't digress into the old "what should I name my cat" or "do you fart in a cubicle" ways (yes, those were both questions at one time). | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 20:15 | answer | added | user174739 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 20:14 | history | edited | user174739 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 3089 characters in body |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 10:43 | history | edited | user174739 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 271 characters in body |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 10:42 | comment | added | user174739 | @AndresF. I think there is a problem, but it has the hallmarks of one that will stagnate by committee. I've added a conclusion of what I think should be done; if there is broad agreement then we will have a way forward, if not then I'll just wind my neck in and leave the politics to others. | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 10:34 | history | edited | user174739 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Added conclusion |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 4:22 | comment | added | Andres F. | Peter, do note that this site has already changed scope at least once. Maybe people are correctly identifying a problem with the current scope and rules? Are you weary of people complaining about it because you don't think there is any problem? | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 3:12 | answer | added | Telastyn | timeline score: 28 | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 21:04 | comment | added | user40980 | @MageXy it was named "Not Programming Related" in the old days. That didn't work well. SE has consistently refused to entertain the possibility of renaming the site. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 20:12 | answer | added | user22815 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 18:35 | comment | added | Mage Xy | I've never really understood why the site was called "Programmers.SE"... we're all programmers, aren't we? Pretty much the same over at SO... so from a newb's perspective, what's the difference? A better name (IMO) would be something like "SoftwareDesign.SE", which makes the site's purpose significantly more specific than "anything programming related". Not saying the name needs to change at this point, just that it was always a bit of a misnomer to me. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 17:23 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackProgrammer/status/707255512807710720 | ||
| Mar 8, 2016 at 14:19 | answer | added | Igbanam | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 13:53 | comment | added | user174739 | @Viziionary Regardless, I think that addressing the bad questions should be the priority. If that situation improves then everyone will be a bit happier to begin addressing other issues. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 13:46 | comment | added | J.Todd | You claim that not understanding the scope is the main issue, well in terms of bad questions it is, but for the record I'm interested in questions which are on the border of the scope definition and need some improvement. Questions where the user makes an effort to meet the scope but misses the mark. You claim less off topic questions would mean less trigger happy people and more willingness to suggest improvement in questions (in your answer below), but I'm not convinced. I still think a few highly active stray users will be an issue still. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 13:46 | history | edited | user174739 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 160 characters in body |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 13:43 | comment | added | J.Todd | @PeterTòmasScott I think my solution would be harmless to implement and would enact your Change Enforcement bullet successfully. I can't think of any lesser way of successfully implementing the "Change Enforcement" option though. So other than that, I would be an advocate of Make Scope More Accessible. However, even then, the interpretation of scope and wording of questions will often leave room for improvement, where I think my suggestion is a must have regardless in order to solve the deeply rooted issue. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 13:36 | comment | added | user174739 | @Viziionary Interesting suggestion but I'm going to leave out any solution that involves major changes to the general mechanism of the Stack Exchange network because they are likely impractical for resolving this issue. However, the general point about changing how bad questions are handled (so that more emphasis is placed on improving rather than closing them) is listed under Change Enforcement. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 13:29 | comment | added | J.Todd | My attempt at solving what I see to be the problem, or as you put it alleviate "symptoms" of the problem: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/276621/… | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 13:27 | history | edited | user174739 | My original question was heading towards the polling for a solution anyway, so let's just make it official. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 13:03 | answer | added | user174739 | timeline score: 15 | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 12:59 | history | edited | user174739 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Made the suggestions express a neutral opinion and moved my opinion into an answer. |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 12:40 | answer | added | J.Todd | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 11:35 | comment | added | Ixrec | +1 for trying to be constructive and trying to understand the problem. Those should not be rare things, but they are. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 11:29 | history | asked | user174739 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |