Timeline for Toward a philosophy of Chat
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
100 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 24, 2021 at 20:02 | comment | added | V2Blast StaffMod | @KyleKanos: A general note for future readers: That issue has since been fixed. | |
| Jan 18, 2021 at 11:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://chat.stackexchange.com with https://chat.stackexchange.com
|
|
| Jun 4, 2020 at 12:42 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 17, 2019 at 19:53 | answer | added | user212646 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 6, 2018 at 21:11 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 7, 2018 at 6:21 | |||||
| Dec 14, 2015 at 16:15 | answer | added | 89c3b1b8-b1ae-11e6-b842-48d705 | timeline score: 14 | |
| Dec 14, 2015 at 15:14 | history | edited | Shog9StaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 14, 2015 at 5:14 | answer | added | ChrisW | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 14, 2015 at 2:10 | comment | added | Jason C | I thought it was already pretty clearly established that the purpose of chat is to share animate GIFs of cats, and that any deviation from this deserves punishment. | |
| Dec 13, 2015 at 20:30 | answer | added | ꓢPArcheon | timeline score: 10 | |
| Dec 13, 2015 at 15:51 | answer | added | frogatto | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 13, 2015 at 3:38 | answer | added | Basil | timeline score: -5 | |
| Dec 12, 2015 at 23:32 | comment | added | user147520 | Thanks for the numbers. It wasn't chat users it was just people in general with >3k. It seems like many more people might benefit if other issues were addressed with the resource that will be put into this. | |
| Dec 12, 2015 at 19:53 | comment | added | Clément |
@Shog9, my suggested edit was unsurprisingly rejected (meta.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/42078), but I do think you could make your post more inclusive by using spouse instead of wife.
|
|
| Dec 12, 2015 at 18:58 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Dec 12, 2015 at 19:44 | |||||
| Dec 12, 2015 at 17:56 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | w.r.t. point #5: unless something's changed since this summer, anyone who connects a single account to 20 different SE sites will be allowed to chat without having to post a single thing on any site (I saw someone do this over the summer, which is why I know this works, at least back then; haven't been to chat much since my workplace blocks it). | |
| Dec 12, 2015 at 17:01 | comment | added | Leopoldo Sparks | You don't mention the smaller sites, where a poisonous clique can gather, hidden from view, and talk about other users. It's immensely off-putting to realise people have been bad-mouthing your attempts to answer questions in chat, when those same people haven't bothered to attempt an answer themselves. There are some sites in never-ending beta, and this cliqueyness is one of the many causes. | |
| Dec 12, 2015 at 3:02 | answer | added | O.M.Y. | timeline score: -4 | |
| Dec 11, 2015 at 19:36 | answer | added | Tritium21 | timeline score: -10 | |
| Dec 11, 2015 at 19:15 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | See for yourself, @Iain. FWIW: the numbers of active chat users with >= 3K are 1300 (SO), 2044 (SE) and 84 (MSE). | |
| Dec 11, 2015 at 15:16 | comment | added | user147520 | How do those numbers compare to acitve users with 3k+ rep ? | |
| Dec 11, 2015 at 14:51 | answer | added | Glenn Teitelbaum | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 11, 2015 at 14:18 | answer | added | user307833 | timeline score: 19 | |
| Dec 11, 2015 at 10:25 | answer | added | Magisch | timeline score: -5 | |
| Dec 11, 2015 at 7:24 | answer | added | goldPseudo | timeline score: 5 | |
| Dec 11, 2015 at 4:32 | comment | added | user148287 | TL;DR - Nothing on the Internet can ever be taken back so censor yourself before you do something you will regret. | |
| Dec 11, 2015 at 1:33 | comment | added | Wad Cheber | @Iain - It usually is a clique, as I said in my answer, which is okay. But it isn't FOR that clique. It is for everyone who wants to stop in. When the clique circle closes in on itself and treats "outsiders" with suspicion, we have a problem. | |
| Dec 11, 2015 at 0:47 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | Why the ginger-bashing in this question? (:P Otherwise excellent.) | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 22:53 | answer | added | Travis J | timeline score: -3 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 21:09 | answer | added | user158781 | timeline score: 13 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 20:06 | comment | added | Travis J | I disagree with mass deleting chat messages. Be careful what you say there, and keep in mind that it is not your personal twitter feed or similar. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 19:06 | answer | added | Benjamin Gruenbaum | timeline score: -8 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 19:05 | comment | added | user261278 | @TylerH I did not think of it that way. I do think users should be able to mass delete their own messages then. And like Q&A, too many message deletes in a given period (date of deletion, not creation) can be restricted that feature. Say, 50 comments per 6 months? | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 18:57 | comment | added | TylerH | @HunterStevens I disagree, unless it can be turned off/on per room by Room Owners or something. There are lots of times when I've needed to find a year-old message based on one or two words I remember because it was evidence for something or it contained a link to something I needed to find again. Expiring messages would ruin this and also long-term analytics for chatrooms. Even fun stuff like "who said the word "yellow" the most during 2015" | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 18:54 | comment | added | user261278 | @TylerH even if they do not take much space, I still think a message expiration date is a great feature requests others are also asking for. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 18:53 | comment | added | TylerH | @HunterStevens Unlikely; text doesn't take much storage space. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 18:36 | comment | added | DJSpud | "Chat is moderated" is not true. Most rooms are in fact "anything goes" until someone gets offended and then we come back to this "Chat is supposed to be on topic... But chat is allowed to be off-topic" circle. The system is designed to fail because it allows unfiltered input to be submitted by randoms of the internet. You cannot fix it pro-actively unless you change the nature of this chat at it's core by way of constant monitoring and automated intervention. You can only be more hardnosed about problems when they do arise. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 18:18 | comment | added | user261278 | Will the transcripts ever be cleared? How much storage do all these messages take? As others have mentioned, chat has become a common meeting place for many people. Some rooms flood with gifs, others have members recounting their day. Overall, chat has become personal. Even a message lifetime would suffice. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 18:16 | answer | added | Louis | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 17:47 | answer | added | Robert CartainoStaffMod | timeline score: 49 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 17:28 | answer | added | sbi | timeline score: 14 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 17:10 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | I'm glad you asked that, @Iain: in the past 30 days, 6355 distinct users have posted something on chat.SO, 4256 on chat.SE, and 354 on chat.MSE. So chat participation is somewhere around 1-2% of active main-site users. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 16:52 | answer | added | Rory Alsop | timeline score: 11 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 16:31 | comment | added | tchrist | @Kitler Why would you require an account to view the transcript? Plus Google. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 16:25 | answer | added | Yvonne Aburrow | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 16:16 | answer | added | ArtOfCode | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 15:54 | comment | added | Yvonne Aburrow | @tchrist alternative words/expressions - Back room, back channel, agora (a less familiar word but sort of related to forum, and implies openness/visibility), public chat, notes & queries. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 15:47 | comment | added | Patsy Issa | @tchrist At least require the user to have a chat account in order to see the transcript | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 15:46 | comment | added | tchrist | @Kitler Because “bad things happen in the dark”. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 15:45 | comment | added | tchrist | @YvonneAburrow Any ideas for an alternate word which one could reasonably contemplate using in lieu of chat that doesn’t murk up the message by simultaneously violating all three of the principles of “least surprise”, of “a rose by any other name”, and of “walks and quacks like a duck”? | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 15:31 | comment | added | Patsy Issa | Why keep the transcript public? It should be obvious by now that those rooms have been serving as a get together spot for people with similar interests that tend to be unrelated to programming. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 15:08 | answer | added | user310756 | timeline score: 11 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 15:02 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Dec 10, 2015 at 15:45 | |||||
| Dec 10, 2015 at 14:54 | answer | added | Kit Z. Fox | timeline score: 14 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 14:34 | comment | added | Yvonne Aburrow | My 2 cents: if StackExchange chat is massively dissimilar to other internet chat systems (which are often assumed to be private messaging) then don't call it chat. The analogy is broken if the features don't match. And privacy (or lack of it) is a pretty key feature. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 14:13 | comment | added | Andy | @tepples, Meta is much more open to discussions. That's the point of Meta. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 14:12 | comment | added | Damian Yerrick | @Undo "if we'd delete it in a comment on Meta, we'll delete it here" wouldn't work in every case, especially when the reason to delete would have been "comments are not for extended discussion; take it to chat". | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 11:27 | comment | added | Sklivvz StaffMod | I keep on reading "Toward a philosophy of Cat" or even "chat"... | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 10:36 | comment | added | user147520 | How many people actually use chat ? The reason I ask is that going here chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=all&sort=people rarely shows very many. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 10:30 | answer | added | Meta Ellen | timeline score: 5 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 8:38 | answer | added | Wrzlprmft | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 7:15 | answer | added | Mad Scientist | timeline score: 41 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 7:11 | comment | added | user147520 | @WadCheber Chat is a clique of regulars. The regulars left the SF Comms room and ::tumbleweed::. Over a year and still ::tumbleweed::. No regulars no chat. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 6:58 | history | edited | user152859 |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 10, 2015 at 4:52 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | There are some excellent rooms, and many excellent people using chat, @BGM. For that reason alone, it is worth putting some though into this. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 4:42 | comment | added | bjb568 | "and linked to your main-site user account by default" … only by default since it's broken? :p | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 4:38 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | This discussion was heavily motivated by the realization that we can't fix tooling without fixing culture, @GnomeSlice; a sick culture and good tooling just gets sicker faster. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 4:31 | comment | added | Buns Glazing | There was a proposal made a while back (and then duped by me) that chat flags don't show up for the entire network right away; they would stay confined to the originating room for a period of time unless unactioned. It was well-received, but now I'm not so sure that's a good idea after all. That just enables "room culture" to get around the rules. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 4:00 | answer | added | dafinguzman | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 3:56 | answer | added | Journeyman Geek | timeline score: 40 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 3:52 | answer | added | Nathan Tuggy | timeline score: -2 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 3:21 | answer | added | Bob | timeline score: 41 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 3:08 | answer | added | Andy | timeline score: 33 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 2:54 | comment | added | bgmCoder | What an excellent summary of what chat is in SE. Nice! You know, however, not all chat rooms are as bad as some of the descriptions here. I've visited the Root Access chat room and received valuable help without any hassle. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 2:42 | comment | added | Cascabel | It's not as awful an issue as the ones you mention, but there's also this weird thing where users who have nothing to do with a site will become regulars in the chat room, just to chat with other regulars. I do think it tends to reduce the utility of the chat as a resource for the site sometimes, and since those regulars aren't talking about anything to do with the site they might run afoul of your list of facts more often, but it doesn't make it actually unusable. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 2:14 | answer | added | Wad Cheber | timeline score: 25 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 2:06 | comment | added | Nathaniel is protesting | Chat has been the red-headed stepchild... Hey! Why the ginger hate? 8-) | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 1:51 | answer | added | Zizouz212 | timeline score: 7 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 1:48 | comment | added | ETHproductions | @DavidG Yes, that's a very good point. I think that most of the exceptions will be the ones who don't know about the changes (fixed by informing them) and the ones who would cause problems anyway (the newbies and the troublemakers, fixed by our current methods). I guess not much change is required outside the policies themselves. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 1:39 | comment | added | DavidG | @ETHproductions Not sure that would be necessary, after all the rules/guidelines will likely pretty much reflect the philosophy of the main sites and people already follow that (with some exceptions). | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 1:33 | comment | added | ETHproductions | Just a general comment: No matter what changes we make, not everyone will accept them right off the bat. We will probably need some sort of grace system while everyone gets used to the new, improved policies. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 1:30 | comment | added | Zizouz212 | @DavidG Exactly, we need "high rules", like a constitution, to make sure that the concept of culture doesn't go out of hand like we have it now. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 1:24 | comment | added | DavidG | @Zizouz212 Depends what you mean by "room culture" really. There's no defensible stance for any culture to go beyond the bounds of what is deemed unacceptable elsewhere on the network. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 1:24 | answer | added | user206222 | timeline score: 72 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 1:20 | comment | added | HDE 226868 | @Zizouz212 Definitely. It can be helpful in a lot of cases (see my answer). | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 1:19 | answer | added | HDE 226868 | timeline score: 125 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 1:17 | answer | added | user194162 | timeline score: 25 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 1:14 | comment | added | Zizouz212 | @HDE226868 Room Culture should be allowed, but out-of-hand room culture shouldn't. I shouldn't have to be punished for calling anything stupid, especially if it's a one-off incident. In fact, this gives me an idea... | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 1:09 | history | edited | ɥʇǝS | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Dec 10, 2015 at 1:06 | comment | added | Wad Cheber | @HDE226868 - Hear hear! Chat is not for a clique of regulars, it is for whoever happens to click the "chat" link. "Relax, everyone here knows my [insert type of offensive material here] comments are meant in jest" just doesn't fly. If it would cause offense to a significant portion of the theoretical population, don't say it. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 1:04 | comment | added | HDE 226868 | I don't know if this should be an answer, but one problem I see (and I know others see it, too) is the idea of "room culture". Some groups of users feel like they function well together and have agreed-upon standards established independently. This is defended as "room culture", and it can be a problem, like when new folks walk in and see (in some cases) things like profanity. When moderation goes against this "culture", they get equally up in arms - especially when the moderator isn't from the room's home site. That attitude is one big problem I see, and it's inherent in the system. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 1:02 | comment | added | Nathan Griffiths | Not that I've used chat much but if people can't understand or stick to the second point of the chat FAQ, which is already pretty clear to me, then how is an updated FAQ going to help? "This site is an extension of The Stack Exchange Network, so discussion should more or less revolve around the same topics you'd find at The Stack Exchange Network... keep it professional and always be respectful of your fellow community members" | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 0:56 | comment | added | Ryan | @Kev, It sounds easy, till you realize that different people define "Be Nice" in different ways. It's pretty much all downhill from there. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 0:53 | comment | added | Kev | How hard is it for folks to "Be Nice, No Smack Talk" ? :/ | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 0:50 | comment | added | CandiedMango | I trust in The Great Compiler. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 0:49 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Let's solve a few easier problems first, @CandiedMango: if we can agree on a universal language, a universal culture, and a universal religion, then we can start talking about a universal set of vulgarities. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 0:46 | comment | added | CandiedMango | As we have a large gathering of different cultures on the site could we have a list of unacceptable words? It sounds slightly childish to ask for, but the words and their ramifications used by people from different countries and even different backgrounds are just that, different. A unified list would be brilliant. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 0:46 | comment | added | Undo | Re. the 3rd point, I think expanding this might be the key to solving the current problem: "all moderation tools and privileges operate in all rooms and they will be used consistently to enforce a global, objective, not-room-determined code of conduct." I do think that code of conduct should be "if we'd delete it in a comment on Meta, we'll delete it here". | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 0:39 | history | edited | Undo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Dec 10, 2015 at 0:24 | history | asked | Shog9StaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |