Return to Answer

- 2013: 14 (of total 69)
- 2014: 19 (of 82)
- 2015: 8 (of 34)
- 2016: 5 (of 41)
- 2017: 4 (of 29)
- 2018: 0 (of 23)

- 2013: 14 (of total 69)
- 2014: 19 (of 82)
- 2015: 8 (of 34)
- 2016: 5 (of 41)
- 2017: 4 (of 29)
- 2018: 0 (of 23) ^{See also update on a year later at the bottom of this answer.}

_{Attentive readers may notice that data analysis here ends at year 2018 and wonder if conclusions based on it are still up-to-date at their time of reading. Well, it really may be outdated - for example data for next year (2019) shows a trend that is very very different than that of previous 3-4 years. If you want to find out something about time frame different than was addressed here (2013-2018), just do your own study of the features change log for period you picked using this answer as an example of how to analyze it.}

You seem to be concerned about negative / not constructive feedback to recent announcements. Consider that matters of reciprocity may play some role here.

To find out if this can be related, I studied Stack Exchange features change log and counted amount of changes that looked like focused on the needs of site "core group" (users who care most).

Here is what I observed year by year:

- 2013: 14 (of total 69)
- 2014: 19 (of 82)
- 2015: 8 (of 34)
- 2016: 5 (of 41)
- 2017: 4 (of 29)
- 2018: 0 (of 23)

You see, this looks like Stack Exchange team shrinks efforts on serving the needs of site core group (who are, not coincidentally, also most active at meta). And you can't realistically expect this to go unnoticed. Maybe people just feel the negligence and behave accordingly.

Can't tell for others but myself, I certainly feel it and it influences they way I act. I think I voted down most if not all announcements in last few years, even those that I felt neutrally about (having dev access to voting data you can check whether my recollection is correct if you're interested).

Worth noting that it wasn't like that in the past. Back then I was inclined to vote it up, even when the announcements were about things I didn't like. It was like I saw the SE team do various things to make it better for me, so if they are doing something I dislike, maybe this will help them keep doing other things that are useful to me, meaning it makes sense for me to support them. You see, this seems to be really about reciprocity.

Now that SE stopped doing things useful to me, I also lost interest in supporting them doing anything else - because, no matter what they do, it ain't going to help me in any way.

I'd say it is now rather opposite: since they stopped doing things of use to me, and only keep making my life harder I feel inclined to make their lives harder in return. I observe on recent announcements tens-to-hundreds of downvotes, suggesting I may not be alone in feeling like that.

Summing up, it is possible that your suggested criteria when answering announcements fall on deaf ears. The active meta audience may simply realize that SE team does nothing to address their needs, and in return, they are not inclined to help them do various things.

This would be natural wouldn't it. Jeff Atwood would probably say that losing constructive meta feedback is sad ("10% of the community feedback... have the potential to make the site clearly better for everyone...") but oh well.

You seem to be concerned about negative / not constructive feedback to recent announcements. Consider that matters of reciprocity may play some role here.

To find out if this can be related, I studied Stack Exchange features change log and counted amount of changes that looked like focused on the needs of site "core group" (users who care most).

Here is what I observed year by year:

- 2013: 14 (of total 69)
- 2014: 19 (of 82)
- 2015: 8 (of 34)
- 2016: 5 (of 41)
- 2017: 4 (of 29)
- 2018: 0 (of 23)

One particularly prominent example is a triage development which has been silently aborted midway:

^{Triage was predicated on us rewriting all of the views. Which... Very nearly happened. And then didn't.}

You see, this looks like Stack Exchange team shrinks efforts on serving the needs of site core group (who are, not coincidentally, also most active at meta). And you can't realistically expect this to go unnoticed. Maybe people just feel the negligence and behave accordingly.

Can't tell for others but myself, I certainly feel it and it influences they way I act. I think I voted down most if not all announcements in last few years, even those that I felt neutrally about (having dev access to voting data you can check whether my recollection is correct if you're interested).

Worth noting that it wasn't like that in the past. Back then I was inclined to vote it up, even when the announcements were about things I didn't like. It was like I saw the SE team do various things to make it better for me, so if they are doing something I dislike, maybe this will help them keep doing other things that are useful to me, meaning it makes sense for me to support them. You see, this seems to be really about reciprocity.

Now that SE stopped doing things useful to me, I also lost interest in supporting them doing anything else - because, no matter what they do, it ain't going to help me in any way.

I'd say it is now rather opposite: since they stopped doing things of use to me, and only keep making my life harder I feel inclined to make their lives harder in return. I observe on recent announcements tens-to-hundreds of downvotes, suggesting I may not be alone in feeling like that.

Summing up, it is possible that your suggested criteria when answering announcements fall on deaf ears. The active meta audience may simply realize that SE team does nothing to address their needs, and in return, they are not inclined to help them do various things.

This would be natural wouldn't it. Jeff Atwood would probably say that losing constructive meta feedback is sad ("10% of the community feedback... have the potential to make the site clearly better for everyone...") but oh well.

You seem to be concerned about negative / not constructive feedback to recent announcements. Consider that matters of reciprocity may play some role here.

To find out if this can be related, I studied Stack Exchange features change log and counted amount of changes that looked like focused on the needs of site "core group" (users who care most).

Here is what I observed year by year:

- 2013: 14 (of total 69)
- 2014: 19 (of 82)
- 2015: 8 (of 34)
- 2016: 5 (of 41)
- 2017: 4 (of 29)
- 2018: 0 (of 23)

You see, this looks like Stack Exchange team shrinks efforts on serving the needs of site core group (who are, not coincidentally, also most active at meta). And you can't realistically expect this to go unnoticed. Maybe people just feel the negligence and behave accordingly.

Can't tell for others but myself, I certainly feel it and it influences they way I act. I think I voted down most if not all announcements in last few years, even those that I felt neutrally about (having dev access to voting data you can check whether my recollection is correct if you're interested).

Worth noting that it wasn't like that in the past. Back then I was inclined to vote it up, even when the announcements were about things I didn't like. It was like I saw the SE team do various things to make it better for me, so if they are doing something I dislike, maybe this will help them keep doing other things that are useful to me, meaning it makes sense for me to support them. You see, this seems to be really about reciprocity.

Now that SE stopped doing things useful to me, I also lost interest in supporting them doing anything else - because, no matter what they do, it ain't going to help me in any way.

I'd say it is now rather opposite: since they stopped doing things of use to me, and only keep making my life harder I feel inclined to make their lives harder in return. I observe on recent announcements tens-to-hundreds of downvotes, suggesting I may not be alone in feeling like that.

Summing up, it is possible that your suggested criteria when answering announcements fall on deaf ears. The active meta audience may simply realize that SE team does nothing to address their needs, and in return, they are not inclined to help them do various things.

This would be natural wouldn't it. Jeff Atwood would probably say that losing constructive meta feedback is sad ("10% of the community feedback... have the potential to make the site clearly better for everyone...") but oh well.

You seem to be concerned about negative / not constructive feedback to recent announcements. Consider that matters of reciprocity may play some role here.

To find out if this can be related, I studied Stack Exchange features change log and counted amount of changes that looked like focused on the needs of site "core group" (users who care most).

Here is what I observed year by year:

- 2013: 14 (of total 69)
- 2014: 19 (of 82)
- 2015: 8 (of 34)
- 2016: 5 (of 41)
- 2017: 4 (of 29)
- 2018: 0 (of 23)

You see, this looks like Stack Exchange team shrinks efforts on serving the needs of site core group (who are, not coincidentally, also most active at meta). And you can't realistically expect this to go unnoticed. Maybe people just feel the negligence and behave accordingly.

Can't tell for others but myself, I certainly feel it and it influences they way I act. I think I voted down most if not all announcements in last few years, even those that I felt neutrally about (having dev access to voting data you can check whether my recollection is correct if you're interested).

Worth noting that it wasn't like that in the past. Back then I was inclined to vote it up, even when the announcements were about things I didn't like. It was like I saw the SE team do various things to make it better for me, so if they are doing something I dislike, maybe this will help them keep doing other things that are useful to me, meaning it makes sense for me to support them. You see, this seems to be really about reciprocity.

Now that SE stopped doing things useful to me, I also lost interest in supporting them doing anything else - because, no matter what they do, it ain't going to help me in any way.

I'd say it is now rather opposite: since they stopped doing things of use to me, and only keep making my life harder I feel inclined to make their lives harder in return. I observe on recent announcements tens-to-hundreds of downvotes, suggesting I may not be alone in feeling like that.

Summing up, it is possible that your suggested criteria when answering announcements fall on deaf ears. The active meta audience may simply realize that SE team does nothing to address their needs, and in return, they are not inclined to help them do various things.

This would be natural wouldn't it. Jeff Atwood would probably say that losing constructive meta feedback is sad ("10% of the community feedback... have the potential to make the site clearly better for everyone...") but oh well.