Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

23
  • 125
    I share this sentiment. When I wrote that wretched Firing Mods and Forced Relicensing post almost 5 months ago, this statement was roughly what I was hoping for as a “good-faith effort towards mending the rift”. But so much more harm has been done in the meanwhile that I'm keeping my expectations very low. Teresa has a long list of really important items, but following through will be non-trivial. In the past, the community managers who noticeably cared had no real agency left. Commented Feb 19, 2020 at 17:25
  • 137
    I totally understand this sentiment and if I were in your shoes I would feel the same way. I personally believe actions are much more powerful than words in nearly all situations. I promise to back up these words with action, starting with the commitments I made above. We have a long backlog of stuff we need to work through and deliver to you all, but we are adding to it daily, prioritizing it based on feedback and ensuring we deliver it. Commented Feb 19, 2020 at 18:46
  • 163
    I really agree with this post, the problem is that it's like the 5th time I've agreed with such a post. We've had the same promises from Fullerton, Chipps, the new CEO (sorry forgot name), and a few others I think. And that's all I'm just the last ~6 months. Every time the top response is 'good start, now follow it up'. Every time things just get worse Commented Feb 19, 2020 at 22:41
  • 60
    I'd be careful about saying "Words are cheap" indefinitely. There are 100 different things this community wants. The root problem has always been Meta falling upon deaf ears. This post, unlike the others, shows a real understanding of the current situation. To me, the fact that the CPO has taken time to understand the issues is a very real action. Commented Feb 20, 2020 at 3:18
  • 11
    @NathanMerrill No, the root problem is that the company suddenly launches Poorly Considered Feature out of the blue. Then when meta complains it falls upon deaf ears, but the root problem is the person who decided to launch Poorly Considered Feature. The root problem isn't even that Poorly Considered Feature was released without community feedback, but that someone came up with it in the first place. Commented Feb 20, 2020 at 13:37
  • 12
    @Lundin Releasing a Poorly Considered Feature is a symptom of not listening. These were obviously Considered Features, as they spent time and money. What makes them Poorly Considered Features is the lack of understanding of how the site works. Updating the licensing is a good idea at it's core, but the implementation of how they do it makes all the difference. Commented Feb 20, 2020 at 14:07
  • 93
    This post, unlike the others, shows a real understanding of the current situation. I'm gonna have to disagree with you, @NathanMerrill. From a cynical standpoint, it's PR spin, meant to continue to placate everyone and continue doing free labour for the benefit of SE. I want to believe it's more than that, but we've been through this song and dance too many times to take SE at their word anymore. Until I see actual changes, I'm assuming this is nothing more but the same. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Commented Feb 20, 2020 at 14:16
  • 4
    @NathanMerrill I'm more thinking about features like "lets make our front page a messy paywall" or "lets launch pornographic ads network-wide". That's not just a lack of understanding of how the site works, it's a lack of understanding how humans and the world work. Commented Feb 20, 2020 at 14:18
  • 2
    The feature wasn't "Launch pornographic ads" or "Make a messy paywall". It was "Add advertising" and "Build Teams for SO". I can get behind monetization models, but not in the way they did it. Commented Feb 20, 2020 at 14:21
  • 5
    @fbueckert my last response wasn't a proper full one. From my reading of the post, it really appears as if Teresa spent time going back and reading and considering the posts made by meta, and actually gets it. I don't know if that is true. But to me, that appears to be the case. Whether the words show true understanding of the site is up to the reader. If there really is understanding, then there was real action going on. If there isn't understanding, then I agree: they are vapid words. Commented Feb 20, 2020 at 14:37
  • 6
    @NathanMerrill And the only way to know which one is correct is through those changes. I've had enough of listening. I want to start seeing. No, I need to start seeing. Commented Feb 20, 2020 at 15:17
  • 32
    @NathanMerrill Except SEI didn't "add advertising" - they went from a curated advertising model to just using Google Ads for the site. The problem that people had wasn't hat the advertising existed, it was that SEI forfeited their control of it ... because "reasons" ... and introduced a platform that presented people with NSFW ads. Commented Feb 20, 2020 at 16:51
  • 8
    Oh. have they finally noticed how badly they've damaged the relationship? Well, that a step. There must be some interesting statistics there :-), which I'm sure we won't get. But rebuilding what you've blown to smithereens for no reason at all is quite another matter. Commented Feb 20, 2020 at 19:26
  • 27
    Completely agree. I really hope this is the start of a great thing - but I can't help but see the parallels to this post, which started off with a great positive reaction, and then tailed off to be the second most downvoted post ever when it became clear the words were mostly, if not entirely, empty. Certainly nothing against Teresa, and I wish her all the best - but we (as in the community) would be foolish not to be rather sceptical at this point. Commented Feb 20, 2020 at 20:36
  • 9
    @GeorgeMReinstateMonica "There must be some interesting statistics there :-), which I'm sure we won't get." The bit of statistics that were shared basically stated that they did not see any significant change in behavior but that the reach of meta may be larger than previously assumed. Either they have already seen an effect but don't want to disclose it, or they fear of what might happen (they might assume inertia in the system), or they have changed their view of the data or this is just words. One or a combination of these things. Commented Feb 21, 2020 at 10:10