Timeline for answer to If more users could vote, would they engage more? Testing 1 reputation voting on some sites by Mad Scientist
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 2023 at 12:24 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | Historically, everything goes down over the years at least on SO, questions, answers, .... why should votes be an exception. | |
| Sep 21, 2023 at 12:22 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | "the decline in voting is a fundamental threat to the Q&A model" On the one hand, voting is kind of second nature after some time, i.e. to automatically and almost sub-consciously estimate the quality of content and decide if it falls into the up or down area. On the other hand it is real effort and quite boring to thousands of times think about how bad or good the content is. I'm a bit tired of it. It's kind of understandable that others should do the job instead but can they do it as good or are they rather just adding noise in the voting, even decreasing its value? | |
| Sep 21, 2023 at 7:38 | comment | added | starball Mod | I'm kind of worried about roomba-ing capabilities. from my time on reddit (still ongoing), people write horrendously (compared to the standard of stack exchange) poorly defined, poorly researched, poorly titled questions, and many of those get net positive scores, which I think would be counter to the mission (make the internet a better place) and methodology (quality Q&A) of stack exchange. | |
| Sep 21, 2023 at 7:33 | history | answered | Mad Scientist | CC BY-SA 4.0 |