Timeline for answer to Was I too harsh when handling a newbie question? by Joe W
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
52 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2017 at 12:41 | history | edited | honk | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed typo and punctuation
|
| Aug 4, 2015 at 15:28 | comment | added | htm11h | @servy just read one of you posts from a side link regarding this site/community content. meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/297527/… I see more of your point, this isn't conveyed well, in the tour or site enrollment, that is community based content. It should be compared to a nudist camp, or block association, where the strict rules dictate house color or landscape design (for example) as SE dictates content. Not saying its wrong, just restrictive, as you argue for good reason. | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 15:24 | comment | added | Servy | @htm11h We don't need to guess. We already know, from extensive experience, that these questions don't generate quality content. You're guessing that they will, I'm telling you that they've already shown (repeatedly, and extensively) that they won't. If you want it, go to one of the tens of thousands of other sites out there that don't prohibit those kinds of questions and see for yourself why they don't turn out well. | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 15:18 | comment | added | htm11h | @servy But they should be, some place on SE. I guess I don't understand you definition of not working, when so many people are complaining about it. Are you simply holding that no one competent enough to answer the questions would do so? | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 15:17 | comment | added | Servy | @htm11h And that's in large part because questions like this aren't welcome, as I've already explained to you. SE improved on other sites by prohibiting content like this. You're proposal wouldn't be improvement, it would be taking steps backwards towards the models that have decades long histories of not working. | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 15:16 | comment | added | htm11h | @servy SE is great, as it stands. But nothing wrong on looking to improve. Is there a history page for this site and its evolution? | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 15:14 | comment | added | Servy | @htm11h If you think you can do better, go ahead and create your own discussion board. There are tens of thousands of others out there; SE just isn't one of them. | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 15:13 | comment | added | htm11h | @servy Ok, I appreciate the details to the previous attempt. Perhaps it was not as well developed as could be done today. | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 15:12 | comment | added | Servy | @htm11h Once again. We did that once. It turned out terribly. As much as people claimed that they want this content, when it was actually given to them virtually nobody actually used the site, it created lots of low quality content, has very little traffic, and has had lasting negative impacts to this day in the efforts to try to clean it up. We have considerable amounts of very compelling evidence that these questions create low quality content, and that it's harmful for the site to have them, even though people think they want them. You've got no evidence to support your position. | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 15:10 | comment | added | htm11h | @servy I still disagree and if you again look at the links previously provided there is a large number of members that have stated issues, moderators as well. My only suggestion was to consider handling these borderline issues differently. I would also contend that professional experience is in fact, fact. Just because it hasn't been published or peer reviewed does not in fact make it solely opinion based. | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 15:09 | comment | added | Servy | @htm11h The quote that you just provided is stating that it is. The history of the site, which has extensive experience with it, has demonstrated, time and time again, that opinion based questions generate low quality content, and that the site is better off without them. | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 15:08 | comment | added | htm11h | @servy as to your garbage analogy, that is exactly what has happened by my choice, I now separate my recyclables for separate collection. | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 15:07 | comment | added | htm11h | @servy you are incorrectly tying opinion based content, often submitted from professional experience, as low quality content, IT IS NOT, low quality. | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 15:06 | comment | added | Servy | @htm11h And all I'm saying is that we aren't going to do that, because it'll cause lots of problems. How would you feel if your garbage man just stopped taking your garbage, saying that he just wants to preserve that content for you and prevent it from being removed from your property. Would you be thankful that he's helping you keep around the content that you're actively trying to discard? | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 15:05 | comment | added | Servy | @htm11h How does that not support my point? The site is asserting that primarily opinion based questions generate very low quality content. Questions that contain some amount of opinion, but that are largely based on objective fact, don't have the same problems. You're saying that entirely opinion based content isn't low quality content, and as justification are posting a statement saying that entirely opinion based questions generate low quality content. | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 15:03 | comment | added | htm11h | All I am saying is preserve them in another repository. | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 15:02 | comment | added | htm11h | @servy again you are incorrect, this is directly from the site...primarily opinion-based - discussions focused on diverse opinions are great, but they just don't fit our format well. Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than on facts, references, or specific expertise. stackoverflow.com/help/closed-questions | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 14:52 | comment | added | Servy | @htm11h SE has determined that opinion based questions are low quality questions, and they don't create quality content. And moving the trash somewhere else, instead of just getting rid of it, is only creating problems for other people. SE even tried it once, many years ago, (creating a trash bin where all of the bad questions were sent so people like you that think they want to see more low quality content could have it) and it turned into a disaster (whose negative effects are still seen today). They're not going to repeat the same mistake again. | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 14:49 | comment | added | htm11h | @servy you do this a lot, declaring low quality content is inaccurate. The issue was Opinion Based answers which are not automatically low quality. And my point was to allow them to be answered, even if it meant moving them to another community, AGAIN, NOT degrading SO content. | |
| Aug 3, 2015 at 17:20 | comment | added | Servy | @htm11h So you're not advocating reducing the quality of the site, you're just advocating not closing or deleting low quality content, which won't have any affect at all on the quality of the site. Sorry, but that's not how that works. When you're advocating not closing or deleting low quality content you are advocating reducing the quality of the content on the site. | |
| Aug 3, 2015 at 17:14 | comment | added | htm11h | @servy You finally make a hint to a good point. But I am not advocating reducing the quality of content of SO. Your argument fails by again grouping all questions as low quality rather than the original statement of Opinion Based, which does not make them in whole, a bad question. My suggestion was simply to not close/delete but to move as is done with many other questions now. | |
| Aug 3, 2015 at 16:22 | comment | added | Servy | @htm11h If you want to participate in sites that welcome bad questions, and refuse to delete anything, regardless of how bad it is, then there are lots of sites out there for you where you can spend all the time that you want looking through garbage. SO was created to be different; and it's not going to completely reverse everything that it stands for so that you can have more low quality content. | |
| Aug 3, 2015 at 16:21 | comment | added | Servy | @htm11h You're not advocating moving the site forward; you're advocating moving it backward. SO was founded because the other Q/A sites out there were full of crap, and it made finding quality content very hard. SO was founded on the idea of having a very high signal to noise ratio, by removing low quality content to help the quality content stand out. You're advocating reversing that founding guiding principle and trying to change SO to be more like the competitors that it has largely crushed into obscurity through its advances in quality control. | |
| Aug 3, 2015 at 15:59 | comment | added | htm11h | @JoeW I did say close/move/delete at the discretion of the reviewer. I think they can handle a mouse click. In fact the site algorithms could likely provide a very close listing of recommended communities to make the process as easy as it is now to move questions, which happens all the time as it is now. | |
| Aug 3, 2015 at 15:58 | comment | added | htm11h | @servy and where in the world did I say 'people can only succeed in IT by asking low quality questions" ? you continue to fabricate content to my post that is not there!!!. | |
| Aug 3, 2015 at 15:56 | comment | added | Joe W | @htm11h Why should another community get a bad question moved to them? Also if you are moving questions why not move any question that fits on another community to that community? After all there are places where recipes would fit so why not move that question instead of deleting it? It would just cause a lot of work for other users and mods to move every question that does not belong on the site when it should be the person who asks the question job to post it on the correct site. | |
| Aug 3, 2015 at 15:53 | comment | added | htm11h | @servy you apparently only want to argue so we'll never reach an understanding. My point was that questions on recipes, for example, would be deleted/closed, while IT topic type questions could be moved to an appropriate community. Come on dude, its a step to improve, not hinder. Embrace change, or stagnate! If you intend to be belligerent on this topic don't bother to reply. I noticed you had no comment on the stats already gathered! And there is no contradiction, they're simply different approaches. | |
| Aug 3, 2015 at 13:14 | comment | added | Servy | @htm11h So it's completely incorrect of me to say that you want to allow any and all questions; you still don't want all questions to be acceptable, you just want us to stop closing and deleting low quality questions and instead let people ask and answer then anyway. Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself there. And if you think that people can only succeed in IT by asking low quality questions and having us pretend that they're not actually low quality questions... | |
| Jul 31, 2015 at 12:03 | comment | added | htm11h | If you scroll down there are some actual stats pulled from the site. | |
| Jul 31, 2015 at 12:03 | comment | added | htm11h | Just to add a little proof to the discussion, here is a rather in depth review of the problem. meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/271863/… | |
| Jul 31, 2015 at 11:59 | comment | added | htm11h | @servy again you are severely missing the point. You make a ridiculous jump to assume that I mean to allow any and all questions. The site has been plagued by user disgust of on topic questions for a long time. Subjective or opinion based answers (among others) are frequently rejected. Ok fine, move them to a different queue, Stack Exchange has hundreds of communities and could easily move (process differently) the lower quality questions. Don't abandon the effort of someone trying to advance their knowledge, by CLOSING or VOTING to DELETE. Provides no value to those that hope to succeed in IT | |
| Jul 31, 2015 at 10:05 | comment | added | Deduplicator | @htm11h: We could always implement migration to yahoo answers. | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 21:43 | comment | added | Patrice | @htm11h "how do I change a tire on my car" is a valid question. Doesn't mean it should be asked on stack overflow. This site was NEVER meant to answer all questions. It became popular because of its quality standards, and because of that it is now completely flooded with people who think anything and everythig should be allowed. Stack became good because it didn't do that. If we turn around, there's a very real risk quality will DRASTICALLY drop | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 21:19 | comment | added | JDB | @htm11h - How you think questions like these should be handled boils down to what you think SO's mission should be. If you think the mission is to answer individual users questions, then you are going to be heavily biased toward allowing just about any question on the site. If you think the mission is to create a repository of high quality content useful for everyone else on the internet, then you are going to be biased toward removing questions that encourage low quality content. Most SO users fit in the second group. Most Yahoo Answers users fit the first. | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 21:10 | comment | added | Servy | @htm11h It's not a valid question. It's content that we don't want here, because the site has determined that they cause more harm than good, and so have considered them out of scope for the site. It doesn't need to be processed differently. | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 19:59 | comment | added | htm11h | @servy I think you missed my point, I said I understand the logic to it. I think the handling is incorrect. There should be no reason to delete a valid question, it just needs to be processed differently. | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 19:58 | comment | added | user4639281 | @servy Oh, thanks for the correction, I was under the impression that only applied to moderator deleted posts. | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 19:58 | comment | added | htm11h | The issue of abandon questions was not part of this discussion, though I understand the need. | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 19:57 | comment | added | Servy | @TinyGiant He can't undelete the post himself as it was deleted by 3 10k+ users. He could only undelete it if he deleted it hiimself. | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 19:56 | comment | added | Servy | @htm11h No, you're the one missing the point. The reason that this community is as good/valuable as it is is precisely because it prohibits questions like these. These highly broad and opinion based questions discourage experts from participating in the long term. So by allowing the types of questions that SO permits, it would make SO a poor place to get answers to those questions, (and the questions currently allowed at the same time). | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 19:53 | comment | added | user4639281 | @htm11h You can undelete your own posts within 90 days of being deleted. You can always edit the question to make it on-topic. But your belief about deletions is naive. What about all of the abandoned questions that are automatically deleted? | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 19:50 | comment | added | htm11h | Perhaps it makes more sense to move the question to a more suiting community, I believe a delete is ever appropriate with the exceptions of misuse, i.e. vulgarity, abusiveness, etc. | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 19:48 | comment | added | htm11h | I think this community in particular is missing the point (in some cases) the user expertise in this community seems uniquely qualified to answer questions that appear to be opinion based. Although the concept of opinion based/subjective answers, and the approach to avoid them seems logical, all too often there appears to be a connection between some responders and the OPs. This may be a dynamic that this community has not considered, think, "You read my mind." There is really no opinion here, but a like (similar) understanding where a solution is easy provided. Its a disservice to not allow. | |
| Jul 29, 2015 at 20:42 | vote | accept | honk | ||
| Jul 28, 2015 at 21:36 | comment | added | DavidPostill | @Pekka웃 "Which is the best platform" > opinion based > off -topic > close > cleanup (delete) | |
| Jul 28, 2015 at 21:08 | comment | added | Servy | @Pekka웃 You don't need an answer to go say, "look up some tutorials on the topic and that will get you started". Without an answer like this around someone looking for tutorials on the topic is more likely to find actual tutorials on the topic when searching, rather than just an SO post saying that they should look at an actual tutorial on the topic. | |
| Jul 28, 2015 at 21:04 | comment | added | Pekka | Leave the answer the hell alone. And why did the whole thing have to be deleted now? | |
| Jul 28, 2015 at 20:57 | comment | added | ryanyuyu | I edited it, but only by removing noise. It still had all the same content. | |
| Jul 28, 2015 at 20:56 | history | edited | Joe W | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed suggestion about handling answer
|
| Jul 28, 2015 at 20:56 | comment | added | Joe W | @ryanyuyu It was edited since I looked at it | |
| Jul 28, 2015 at 20:55 | comment | added | ryanyuyu | Definitely don't use NAA. It is an answer. The problem is with the question. And VLQ? IMO it's not. It offers a good explanation. Again, the problem is with the question. | |
| Jul 28, 2015 at 20:54 | history | answered | Joe W | CC BY-SA 3.0 |