Timeline for Great Expectations... or, at least, user expectations
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:29 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 21, 2016 at 13:45 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | I like "software architecture and design", especially because it makes the difference to StackOverflow as clear as possible. | |
| S Mar 16, 2016 at 9:46 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| S Mar 16, 2016 at 9:46 | history | unlocked | CommunityBot | ||
| S Mar 9, 2016 at 9:44 | history | notice added | yannisMod | Comments only | |
| S Mar 9, 2016 at 9:44 | history | locked | yannisMod | ||
| Mar 8, 2016 at 15:25 | comment | added | yannis Mod | @Viziionary If you feel someone is being rude, flag their comments. "returning the favor" won't get you anywhere (good, that is). | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 15:23 | comment | added | J.Todd | @Yannis He(/she)'s being rude, albeit in an intelligent manner, to me, I'm simply returning the favor and also pointing out that his reasoning is falsely justified. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 15:21 | comment | added | enderland | @Viziionary that's fine. But consider that I am not only writing to you, but also to others who might read this - perhaps you are unwilling to do anything regarding community moderation. Others who read this may feel empowered to actually participate in community moderation (who were previously unaware this was an option - it's surprising how many people seem unaware that "regular" users can be participants in moderation). | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 15:21 | comment | added | yannis Mod | @Viziionary Be nice. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 15:15 | comment | added | enderland | @Viziionary there is no requirement that you answer questions to moderate. SE is a community moderation system, and that community includes people with 1 to 1,000,000 (or whatever Jon Skeet has now) reputation. It's limited only by the interest and desire of people to be involved -- not whether or not they answer. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 15:14 | comment | added | J.Todd | @enderland actually, I said that it doesn't make sense for me to moderate yet because currently I'm not qualified to answer the questions as an expert. Just because I ask questions from time to time, and point out flaws in the system, requires me to be active in moderation in the site or else I'm a bad person? You realize this whole Stack Exchange System can't work without people like me caring about the questions we ask? You don't care about my perspectives, alrighty, I dont care about yours either. I decline to respond further to your ridiculous statements. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 15:09 | comment | added | enderland | @Viziionary, ah, so you'd rather other people change than actually change yourself? That is not a good way to affect change, demanding other people adjust their site (since as you say, you don't really want to be a part of anything other than having your questions answered) to meet your desires, while simultaneously saying "not my site to moderate!" It makes me not care what your perspectives are since you are saying, "I don't want to be part of the site, but I want the site to conform to my desires so I can get answers anyways." | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 15:02 | comment | added | J.Todd | @enderland it means there's little appeal in hanging around the site all the time to moderate when I only visit occasionally to ask a question. Moderation is for those around the site regularly because they enjoy answering questions. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 14:55 | comment | added | enderland | @Viziionary Why does that matter? Not being an "answerer" doesn't mean you can't help people make their questions more on topic, ask clarifying questions, edit to make more clear, etc. In other words, be the change you want to see. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 14:53 | comment | added | J.Todd | @enderland I can buy that, but at this point I'm still in the asking, not answering phase, due to lack of experience / skill in the field, and moderation makes sense once I become an answerer on the site, later on but right now I occasionally like to use the site to learn things and I'm frustrated with problems that are very real. I can't deny your claim, but I do think a solution is available one way or the other and if a little frustration by one person on Meta gets people thinking about it then it's worth writing about. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 14:49 | comment | added | enderland | @Viziionary I encourage you to spend some time trying to edit, comment, and improve questions here before so completely assuming it is possible to "fix" as many as you suggest. It is easy to tell others what to do when you don't understand what it is you are asking them to do. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 14:46 | comment | added | J.Todd | @BarryTheHatchet I'll admit I sometimes "flame", I suppose one would call it, when frustration grows high enough, but notice that this only comes after over a year of dealing with the problem I'm discussing, and you'll find my question history to be all positive with the exception of -3 on one question. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 14:42 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | This is a much better post than your previous meta question, and I can't say I disagree with any of it. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 14:37 | comment | added | J.Todd | @enderland the following year that number becomes 20 people that instead of leaving after wording a question badly and getting cut down, were helped to improve, and went on to become effective members of the community. In two years on the site, your investment of time helping a few people now and then to improve becomes a massively exponential growth of positive self-moderation activity on the site, and that's with you acting alone. So if you consider my numbers too high, fine, but with 2-3 people doing this the outcome is still very good. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 14:36 | comment | added | J.Todd | @enderland Just because moderation is difficult doesn't mean problems with it dont need to be solved. If, instead of spamming close votes you took a moment sometimes on potentially improvable questions, lets say in a year you write 1000 of such comments. If as Jorg said 1 / 25 attempts leads to an improved question, a user responding to a friendly community, and of those 40 successes, 4 of them become strongly active members on the site, you've personally multiplied your effectiveness by 4 and those 4 people will each be treating people they way they were treated, helping improve questions. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 14:30 | comment | added | enderland | And for what it's worth, there is a chatbot posting any "post on programmers" comment on Stack Overflow - the education problem is there -- not here. I encourage you to join that chat and participate and see how many low quality questions get recommended by users of Stack Overflow to be posted here. It is easy for you to post a "todo" list for regular users here, but us regular users here see a deluge of completely off topic (as in, even with edits never going to be on topic) questions here every day. Understandably it's easier to blast the site on meta than participate yourself. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 14:29 | comment | added | J.Todd | @JörgWMittag Until you include the factor of improved crap turning around and helping you deal with the problem in the future, and this effect being exponential. When you create a friendly environment for people in your community, help them improve, more of them will become active members than if you just vote to close them. Each active member increases the result moderation productivity, and you can bet those people you welcomed and spent time helping will follow suit, and one day welcome people themselves and there is your exponent. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 14:29 | comment | added | enderland | Adding to what @JörgWMittag said, many of the problem questions are from brand new "drive by" users who do not ask repeat questions. Most of those that do ask repeat questions ask identical or very similar repeat questions and ignore the advice given by the community, argue with edits, or otherwise are contrary to this goal. For every 1 person who will actively edit their question and improve it, there are dozens or hundreds that don't. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 14:15 | comment | added | Jörg W Mittag | "Just think of how many people you could have trained to ask better questions in the past year with a few moments spent suggesting improvements to questions rather than just cutting them down" – The problem with this is that it only works if the average time to improve a question is significantly shorter than the expected time between arrivals of two bad questions, which in my observation is not true. In other words: crap is flooding in so fast that you cannot afford to take time to improve the crap because during the time you spend improving the crap you accumulate more crap than you improve. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 13:31 | history | edited | J.Todd | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 207 characters in body |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 13:06 | comment | added | user174739 | Also, for the purposes of this discussion, could you add a summary to the top of your answer? I expect that you would be expressing support for the Make Scope More Accessible and the Change Enforcement solutions? | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 13:04 | comment | added | user174739 | I've added the suggestion regarding scope to the list of solutions. I've also made the list of solutions in the question impartial and have moved my opinions into a separate answer. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 12:40 | history | answered | J.Todd | CC BY-SA 3.0 |