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*

8
  • "Forgive me is others already mentioned this" just two comments from my ctrl+f in devtools. no answer posts before yours- at least- none that link to that MSE post. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/393127/…, meta.stackexchange.com/questions/393127/… Commented Sep 21, 2023 at 9:11
  • 4
    I mean, I think it’s silly to assume they weren’t aware of all of this given their past comments on these very things in the past 8 months. Commented Sep 21, 2023 at 17:20
  • This project actually predates the GenAI site by quite a lot. Despite statements I've seen made in some places, the GenAI site was not an alternate way to test this project. They are not related at all and different CMs are involved. These two projects are different in several key ways. This is only about reputation to vote, involves significant amount of data gathering and support by staff during the test to enhance tools and automations based on that data throughout the test. Commented Sep 21, 2023 at 21:19
  • That proposal was about reducing all privileges to mimic private beta levels on a brand new site. It was posed to the community directly with no indications of it being a "test" or having any product support to address voting issues. While many of the concerns related to voting privileges directly, the huge differences that do exist in the projects would not lead me to say they're "virtually identical" unless maybe I was only looking at the titles of the questions. Commented Sep 21, 2023 at 21:20
  • 3
    Your assertion about the Association Bonus being ignored or forgotten is incorrect. The question states that it was drafted to be more on the short side - it's still four pages long vs the 8-9 of the Mod Team post. That's not to hide things, it's because if I had included everything that I knew people were going to ask about, it would be three times longer than it is now and I don't think that's digestible. As such, I made an intentional decision to respond to direct questions/concerns about specific things as they came in. I stand by that choice. Commented Sep 21, 2023 at 21:31
  • 2
    @Catija See the last see the last passage in the post. I didn't meant anyone wanted to "hide" things. I am pointing out it looks like it was a very bad idea to not include a central point of the previous similar discussion (especially if the company did do its "homework" internally and further discussed it) because the obvious outcome is that people will look at the post, see it is again about the same basic idea, see that their concerns weren't addressed and once again think your left hand doesn't know what the right one is doing. Commented Sep 22, 2023 at 7:59
  • @Catija it is not a "work" issue - it is a communication one. The summary forgot to include things that IMHO should have been at the core of a similar communication, with the outcome of making the company again look like it does not care for feedback. And in this case this is not true by your own claim, so allow me to say it is quite a pity. Commented Sep 22, 2023 at 8:01
  • @Catija Anyway I have edited the post based on the new information you disclosed so that it should be more evident that this is a critic to the way the company communicates and not on the actual actions (that said, I will also add that imho this idea is still very useless if not actively bad) . As for the "similar only in title", I'll agree to disagree. Context may be different but the outcome and more importantly the effect - again imho - did greatly overlap, especially in relation to the association bonus issue. Commented Sep 22, 2023 at 8:09