Timeline for answer to Why the backlash against poor questions? by Shog9
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:15 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| May 14, 2014 at 11:20 | comment | added | undefined | I also think downvotes aren't the answer, i think the answer is to close questions more efficiently, especially duplicates. i think thats where automation should come in, perhaps some kind of close probability metascore which reduces the number of close votes required or something. | |
| May 12, 2014 at 16:06 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Downvotes are a pretty poor tool for this for a number of reasons, @mehow. My point is more that right now we're not doing anything - so reasonable questions don't even need to be downvoted to be ignored... They just need to be unlucky. | |
| May 12, 2014 at 10:43 | comment | added | user2140173 | well, I have seen really interesting and good questions downvoted before.. your proposal is not a generic solution as it would cause harm to those good but downvoted (by noobs) questions | |
| May 12, 2014 at 7:42 | comment | added | JW Lim | @RobertHarvey If there existed a threshold to only see high quality questions, then how are the new good ones going to get there in the first place? Since most (if not all) high-rep experts will use that feature, only low-rep users will vote on new questions, and I'm not sure if you want to trust their judgement on what makes a good question. Or worse, genuinely good questions voted down because the non-experts can't understand it and it looks off-topic/too broad/etc. | |
| May 12, 2014 at 3:02 | comment | added | dilbert | @MichaelT, of course a poor score can give forewarning as well but there will always be a first wave of answerers who have to read the rubbish question but that, as you say, assumes they will downvote a rubbish question. | |
| May 12, 2014 at 2:31 | comment | added | user289086 | @dilbert I find a -2 on the question to be clue enough. That said, when people up vote things that are... well, crap and don't down vote crap, that metric becomes less useful. | |
| May 12, 2014 at 1:40 | history | edited | Shog9StaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
If I had a nickel for every time I got distracted and started re-writing the same sentence again without deleting the last revision...
|
| May 12, 2014 at 1:02 | comment | added | dilbert | I've suggested visual hinting to low-quality questions, giving advanced warning to the would-be answerer or closer. It works by determining a question's likeness to previously closed/deleted questions. | |
| May 12, 2014 at 0:19 | comment | added | Robert Harvey Mod | I like the idea of having a checkmark to eliminate the low-quality questions. I'd like it even better if I could set the quality-score threshold in my profile. I also like the idea of two downvotes dropping the question off the front page or my selected tag page. | |
| May 11, 2014 at 22:33 | history | answered | Shog9StaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |