Timeline for What can we do to help users understand our site better?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:37 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 17:21 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 17:21 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 29, 2013 at 8:02 | comment | added | gnat | @Rachel there we go; answer has been updated with the reference to concrete feature request that would help us find out if answer reasoning holds true | |
| Jan 29, 2013 at 8:01 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
recent feature request intended to address above issues is Trial run of modified "hotness formula" for Programmers questions
|
| Jan 16, 2013 at 14:25 | comment | added | user53019 | @gnat - I noticed that yesterday as well. :-( Most of the 22 are reasonably active, but I don't think that's a sufficient number to see delete votes used as I had envisioned. Back to down voting, I guess. | |
| Jan 16, 2013 at 14:08 | comment | added | gnat | @GlenH7 I just learned that answer deletion is limited to 20Kers not 10Kers, so the idea of community correcting would be more precisely phrased as job for active 20Kers (aka trusted users). For the record, as of now we've got 22 such users, three of them are moderators. | |
| Jan 15, 2013 at 12:56 | comment | added | user53019 | Those are some interesting stats; I had always wondered how much CW status on some of my answers was costing me. And the short answer appears that I would be past 10k around now... :-) You make a really good point regarding down voting with that. FWIW, 2 of those 3 were intentionally set to CW status as they were aggregating comments that answered the question. But that 1 other question has 139 votes currently. | |
| Jan 15, 2013 at 7:51 | comment | added | gnat | @GlenH7 ...I just checked: of your posts, 3 are CW, with total score 149. Of mine, 12 are CW, with total score 498. Rachel has 30 CW posts, with total score 479. If only half of these is "eaten" by CW, this makes something like 550 votes go into zero. This would make 5500 rep lost to just three of us. Wow. Just... wow. How much does downvoting a garbage answer cost? -1? just one point? compared to mentioned losses, this is nothing. | |
| Jan 15, 2013 at 7:05 | comment | added | gnat | @GlenH7 well, regarding down-voting the crud answers, this could impact reputation in the opposite way than it looks at the surface. Did you notice how piling of garbage answers eventually turns things CW (more than 1700 answers scored 25+ turned community wiki)? This turns upvotes given to good answers into zero rep; if downvoting crap answers somehow tames that, this effectively means good answers will be bringing more rep to authors | |
| Jan 15, 2013 at 1:05 | comment | added | user53019 | experiments are always good. :-) And if you would quit down-voting the crud answers then you would clear that 10k barrier without any issues. ;-) | |
| Jan 14, 2013 at 19:46 | comment | added | gnat | @GlenH7 active 10Kers, I see. Well this option looks worth considering (though I am not yet versed in 10K tools to say for sure). We could maybe even give it a trial run, on questions that were sampled in "answers quality..." to test how it could possibly work | |
| Jan 14, 2013 at 18:28 | comment | added | user53019 | @gnat - active 10k'ers then? I've noticed the high numbers too, but there aren't a lot that are consistently active. Of course, I've none the idea on getting the existing 10k'ers to become more active. | |
| Jan 14, 2013 at 18:05 | comment | added | gnat | @GlenH7 given that as of now, there are quite a lot of 10Kers already (74 as of now) I somehow doubt this alone would make a difference | |
| Jan 14, 2013 at 17:41 | comment | added | user53019 | to some degree, can this become community correcting as the number of 10k+ users continues to grow? In general, I agree with your theories regarding crap answers to hot questions. | |
| Jan 13, 2013 at 15:53 | comment | added | gnat | @Rachel yup; I would prefer this to be sorted of in the "suggested cause" question; it's too complicated to be covered in comments and even in a single answer. Your idea of protection notice sounds good btw | |
| Jan 13, 2013 at 15:44 | comment | added | Rachel | Thanks. While in theory "ensuring answer quality in "hot" questions" sounds good, I'm not sure how that will work in practice. Often we don't know in advance which questions will become "hot" until after their # of views has skyrocketed and the damage has been done. Also, how would you actually go about doing that? I suppose moderators could put a protection notice on it to prevent answers from users with under 10 reputation, but that's the only thing I can think of. | |
| Jan 13, 2013 at 6:55 | comment | added | gnat | @Rachel answer expanded on that; feel free to ask if you'd like to see it clarified further | |
| Jan 13, 2013 at 6:54 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
solution clarified
|
| Jan 13, 2013 at 1:08 | comment | added | Rachel | Ok... do you have a solution though? And if so, can you try to highlight it more in your answer? I posted this question to try to find solutions, and only a few of the answers provided so far offer actual solutions. | |
| Jan 12, 2013 at 20:45 | comment | added | gnat | @Rachel note potential in your comment; I fully agree meaning that there is a chance that addressing low quality answers in hot questions won't help. Because of that, we can only try and test, not guarantee the solution. As for what we can try and test, well if (if) the cause-effect relationship suggested in my answer is true, then logically solution for "answer quality" question (to be defined yet) will also resolve the one you asked. Remove the cause, and effect will also go away | |
| Jan 12, 2013 at 16:38 | comment | added | Rachel | Although this may be a potential cause of the problem, I'm looking for solutions to fix the problem, and I don't see any solutions in your answer. Do you have any suggestions to help lower the number of "bad" questions that get asked here? | |
| Jan 12, 2013 at 12:36 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
broken windows: "why can't I post X when Y exists"
|
| Jan 12, 2013 at 12:23 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
formatting kaizen
|
| Jan 12, 2013 at 10:56 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 348 characters in body
|
| Jan 12, 2013 at 10:30 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
formatting kaizen
|
| Jan 12, 2013 at 8:38 | history | answered | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |