Timeline for answer to Next steps for open-ended questions by esqew
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 10 at 17:10 | comment | added | M-- | @KyleMit not a good starting point, just how we'd want to deal with the existing OB/TR questions. I know what you mean in general, regarding testing out something before doing it en mass, but Dalija's point echoed by others here is not about testing the waters: we're against programmatically reopening those questions and we deal with them case by case, indefinitely. | |
| Jul 10 at 10:34 | comment | added | l4mpi | @KyleMit my vote would be for zero posts to be reopened programmatically; this should all be done manually. Any automatic process would have false positives and reopen crap that would need to be closed again. Even for "good" recommendation questions with enough details and no other quality issues, reopening may be inappropriate for lots of reasons (such as age - a good recommendation question needs details about requirements and context, but if it's a decade old then in most cases the dev world moved on and the context isn't applicable anymore, see e.g. the entire JS tag). | |
| Jul 9 at 22:05 | comment | added | Thom A Mod | Just adding my 2 cents that I think "yes" , we should reopen (and retag) good quality posts that fit into this new category. But good is an important thing here; the closed, low score ones, are not worth the effort, but we definitely have some questions out there with high scores, and some that are historically locked, that would benefit from the change deployed today. | |
| Jul 9 at 18:47 | comment | added | KyleMit StaffMod | Also, my rule of thumb is to always do 10/20/50 of something before you automate 1k so you can bake in the learnings during that process. If we have reliable evidence to figure out which questions we want to programmatically re-open that the community has found, that's a helpful starting point, but as @DalijaPrasnikar said, case-by-case is a good starting point to figure out which don't make sense to open. | |
| Jul 9 at 18:45 | comment | added | Dalija Prasnikar Mod | I would say that we would have to deal with existing questions on case by case basis. Many of such Q/A which are still alive have rather poor answers, and reopening those doesn't make much sense. The ones we might want to start reopening are style guides and similar. | |
| Jul 9 at 18:45 | comment | added | Berthold StaffMod | What @KyleMit said :) We're not going to do that indiscriminately or on our own, but it's an option on the table if there's a push from the community to do it in a targeted way. | |
| Jul 9 at 18:12 | comment | added | KyleMit StaffMod |
Also, never say never. I don't think we're opposed to a mass migration, but want to follow the communities lead here. I, for one, really like the idea that anything closed as looking for a tooling recommendation would just now be a valid question with the tooling-recommendation tag, but we also don't want to blindly make those types of changes without input / buy-in. Open up a meta post, litigate it, say the word, and I'll write the script.
|
|
| Jul 9 at 17:49 | comment | added | starball Mod | @esqew I take from berthold's answer that it wouldn't be automated indiscriminately, and it's up to us what we want to reopen, if we do. (berthold, let me know if I'm misinterpreting) | |
| Jul 9 at 17:20 | comment | added | esqew | @Berthold Certainly so - but not en masse - that would be something that not everyone could affect, and would be the course by which this could turn into a huge nightmare for the community and moderators. The decision-makers I'm thinking about are Staff who would be able to do that fairly swiftly, should that decision be made. | |
| Jul 9 at 17:19 | history | edited | esqew | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 36 characters in body
|
| Jul 9 at 17:18 | comment | added | Berthold StaffMod | The decision-makers on that are everyone who can vote to re-open closed questions. | |
| Jul 9 at 17:15 | history | answered | esqew | CC BY-SA 4.0 |