Timeline for answer to The CEO says we "have now changed" our reputation for over-zealous moderation. What actually changed? by nvoigt
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 14 at 19:34 | comment | added | Larnu | "If a question is a duplicate you're going to get a friendly response from the AI assistant. You're not going to get humiliated in front of the world." That statement alone tell you how out of touch the CEO is with what the goals of the Stack sites are. They aren't invested in the success of the site's goals, they are only interested in the financial success; if that means reinventing the sites, that's the death of the sites. The users who have invested years of expertise will leave, and they'll be left with a place where those who contribute are not those with years of expert knowledge. | |
| Feb 14 at 2:21 | comment | added | Ramhound | @JourneymanGeek - Wonderful story about your late Schnauzer, my Schnauzer puppy recently chewed on our blinds, and was put in a timeout. He eventually apologized to us for being a “bad boy” by nuzzling his head and giving us small kisses. | |
| Feb 13 at 14:47 | comment | added | peterh | internal motives. (I think, that is the probable background of the consequent negligence of the SE site network.) But also that is possible that actually all their steps into the direction of the lesser hostility caused negative measurable financial results for them (or, that is what they have seen in their stats). Everything is possible and also its opposite, in the lack of information we only have suspections and nothing proven. | |
| Feb 13 at 14:45 | comment | added | peterh | I think it is a hard question, how the company is going so consequently and vehemently against its own interests. The question is hard, because only they can see their own internal relations and decisions. For example, it is quite possible that Prasanth has no real understand neither effect to the actual friendlyness of the sites. Instead, a consensus of old leaders decides on various levels of the hierarchy. Changing it would require radical personal changes, what the board does not allow him. Another option: actually no one has real interest in the future, instead they are going on their own | |
| Feb 13 at 7:13 | comment | added | Lundin | @starball You are assuming that I have an interest of moderating the site, working for free for a US-based private company that couldn't care less about it. That's another core flaw of the site: just because I'm a user, it doesn't mean that I want to be a moderator. Just because I have a lot of rep, it doesn't mean that I'm suitable for moderating. | |
| Feb 12 at 17:39 | comment | added | starball Mod | "there are no consequences for people constantly closing posts for the wrong reasons etc etc." like journeyman geek said, raise it to attention. if you're not sure if the behaviour is appropriate or not, raise it on meta. if you're confident it's inappropriate, raise a mod flag. @Lundin | |
| Feb 12 at 13:16 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | Consensus? No, encouraging actual community engagement's a good goal. People feel good when they see their efforts - either by asking or voting work. We will never get consensus, but I'd settle for 5 people agreeing. | |
| Feb 12 at 12:46 | comment | added | Lundin | @JourneymanGeek It could be done in much better ways. "Achieving consensus" of what should be closed works poorly: it leaves bad questions open far too long, it leaves incorrect close votes hanging on to the post for a very long time, there are no consequences for people constantly closing posts for the wrong reasons etc etc. It becomes a "mega down vote because I don't like the post". There are two major mistakes here: leaving crap questions visible to the public far too long and letting people moderate posts whom actually have no interest in doing so, nor in helping the confused OP. | |
| Feb 12 at 12:27 | comment | added | nvoigt | @AmazonDiesInDarkness Those studies seem like a colossal waste of money to find the obvious. I certainly prefer pizza to a can of beans. But if I am so hungry that I ask strangers on the internet for food, I will gladly accept a can of beans. Some moderator banning the donation of beans and saying that only pizza is acceptable is not what I need when I'm hungry. and if I'm not actually hungry but just looking for a place to hang and chat and be welcome, that place isn't SO. There's a thousand other places for that. If SE tries to be them, they will lose. The others already do it better. | |
| Feb 12 at 12:19 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | @gottrolledtoomuchthisweek that seems plausible, if its a common occurance, maybe flag to the mods to get the community dept to take a look? | |
| Feb 12 at 12:17 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | @Lundin Its the only really scalable system for community re-opens. Its also a sign of healthy community engagement. Unless we're specifically curtailing gold badge closehammers, someone has to review a closure, and it can't just be the mods. If you believe enough in something, you're going to make the effort to ask I'd say. | |
| Feb 12 at 12:01 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Feb 12 at 12:22 | |||||
| Feb 12 at 11:53 | comment | added | Lundin | @JourneymanGeek That's a fundamentally bad system either way: for every personal complaining on meta about incorrect closing, there will be >10 others who just silently gave up. | |
| Feb 12 at 11:17 | comment | added | got trolled too much this week | @JourneymanGeek politics.stackexchange.com/questions/94190/… | |
| Feb 12 at 10:55 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | @gottrolledtoomuchthisweek could you provide some examples of people downvoting each other's answers? | |
| Feb 12 at 10:54 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | @Lundin The checks we had in place were folks bringing it up on meta for community or mod reopening. On most sites meta usage dropped off a cliff - our systems in general are broken right now. Getting another gold badger, a posse of users or a mod to reopen and let the badger know its not right should be what we're doing. Its not working cause, well we don't have enough people doing that sort of thing. | |
| Feb 12 at 9:43 | comment | added | Lundin | Now I can understand why someone who is relatively new to programming might think that "seg fault" is the actual problem, but I cannot understand why someone with a gold badge in lets say C or C++ could think that a "list of all common causes of seg faults" solves the actual problem. That is elitism, gatekeeping and generally shitty behavior. The solution is to suspend the close voter from close voting, period. | |
| Feb 12 at 9:41 | comment | added | Lundin | The duplicate system is far from ideal, because there is no confirmation that the person who asked the duplicate question actually gets the problem. Also, the same system have a long history of abuse. Someone posts a question with the title "seg fault" or "null pointer exception" and then some elitist user abuses the duplicate system by closing it as a dupe to a general post of why seg faults/null pointer exceptions may appear. In which case both the dupe asker and the close voter have misunderstood that the error diplayed is just a symptom of the core problem, not the core problem itself. | |
| Feb 12 at 8:46 | comment | added | Amazon Dies In Darkness | Large bodies of research in social psychology and behavioral economics (e.g., cooperation in public‑goods and trust games) show people generally prefer fair, polite, and cooperative interactions rather than rudeness or hostility. | |
| Feb 12 at 8:45 | comment | added | Amazon Dies In Darkness | Although the question only mentioned Stack Overflow, it is essential to remember that Stack Exchange is not a "technical network". Stack Overflow is just one site in the vast Stack Exchange network. A majority of Stack Exchange sites focus on what I consider to be non-technical topics (life/arts/fitness/sports/language/etc.). Although a small subset of people may find it acceptable to have others be rude to them (and are only interested in answers), there is no data (of which I'm aware) in the fields of psychology or sociology that supports a notion that a majority of humans feel that way. | |
| Feb 12 at 8:06 | comment | added | starball Mod | you specifically wrote "anyone on this planet". is the reader "anyone"? isn't anyone "anyone"? would it not be reasonable for one to read it that way? the connection to current events in the US was quite unclear. it also doesn't seem to be necessary to make your point. | |
| Feb 12 at 6:50 | comment | added | nvoigt | @starball I appreciate the explicitness of a mod-edit. With the most powerful man's best buddy's horrible alleged crimes on TV constantly and any and all other people involved dodging their accountability in the issue, this being a huge media spectacle, I did not think a random SE user would think "ey, when he says no accountability, he must be talking about me personally". But okay... I guess... weird world we live in now. | |
| Feb 11 at 22:52 | history | edited | starballMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
remove unkind commentary that appears to be directed towards a category of people including a subset of users of this platform. this edit is explicitly a mod action.
|
| S Feb 11 at 14:13 | history | edited | nvoigt | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Person not prick
|
| S Feb 11 at 14:13 | history | suggested | jen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Person not prick
|
| Feb 11 at 11:27 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 11 at 14:13 | |||||
| Feb 11 at 11:23 | comment | added | got trolled too much this week | Alas what I observed seem to be 'community driven' although it's probably in part to due a decrease in good questions. There are some users whom could probably be described as addicted to the site who for lack of good questions would answer anything to keep themselves in the loop. | |
| Feb 11 at 11:16 | comment | added | got trolled too much this week | I disagree that any degree of roughness is palatable, but largely agree with the gist here. On some smaller and non-technical sites the new trend (although probably not CEO/top-driven) is allow a bunch of unclear questions and then the answerers downvote each other to hell [each] assuming a different question/interpretation. Those are also not good dynamics. | |
| Feb 11 at 8:56 | comment | added | nvoigt | hm, mine could never hold a grudge longer than the next snack, but I guess each dog is different :) | |
| Feb 11 at 8:32 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | " if you want unconditional welcoming, get a dog." As a former dog owner - I can confirm there's conditions. My late mutt ignored me for 3 days for yelling at him for slipping his leash for 3 days. I had to apologise. I do think the duplicate system needs a relook but its a lot more complicated than hurt feelings. | |
| Feb 11 at 8:25 | history | answered | nvoigt | CC BY-SA 4.0 |