Timeline for answer to Gamification rules have to be changed. Aiming quality, not quantity by Duncan Jones
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 15:29 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jun 2, 2014 at 7:32 | comment | added | Duncan Jones | @devnull The usefulness of canonical questions would be determined by how deeply ingrained they became in SO work flows. Simply existing, quietly in the corner, is unlikely to help many people. But if they bubble to the top of related questions or otherwise become more obvious to users as they ask questions, then some effect may be seen. | |
| Jun 1, 2014 at 17:54 | comment | added | devnull | @jalf You don't need to say: How dare you ask again, but you (one) can instead vote to close as duplicate instead of upvoting the no-effort question that could have been answered by a web search. | |
| Jun 1, 2014 at 17:51 | comment | added | devnull | Regarding canonical questions: I'm not sure if it'd help much. The regex tag wiki even links to a canonical question and yet you continue to see silly questions flowing in and being encouraged with upvotes and multiple answers. | |
| Jun 1, 2014 at 15:46 | comment | added | James King | I love the idea of a canonical question. Reading all the canonical questions in a given tag would be a way of extending your education on the subject matter. Going a step further, the canonical questions could be organized not just by tag but by theme; the dissemination of the SO body of knowledge could go beyond "google question - find answer" to "You want to know more about x; you should read the SO canonical questions". | |
| Jun 1, 2014 at 12:52 | comment | added | Stack Overflow is garbage | Look at the site. Does it look to you like people lack motivation for calling out duplicate questions? Whatever SO's problems, a lack of people willing to shout "THIS HAS BEEN ASKED BEFORE, HOW DARE YOU ASK THIS QUESTION AGAIN" is not among them. | |
| May 30, 2014 at 22:43 | comment | added | jpmc26 | I've seen questions wrongly closed as duplicates, so I disagree with rewarding duplicate finding. Deciding whether something is a duplicate can be a very fine line that a lot of people don't seem to pay much attention to. (Robo-reviewers are another example.) If duplicate closing were revised to help that situation, I would be more inclined to agree. I like the direction of this idea, even if the details need smoothing out: meta.stackoverflow.com/a/252896/1394393. | |
| May 30, 2014 at 16:26 | comment | added | Jeremy Cook | Duplicate answer workflow: (1) User A adds special answer to question known as a duplicate question answer (term?) that includes a link to an existing answer and perhaps a brief description of how they relate. (2) User B finds question and sees the duplicate question answer, clicks the link, and then finds an answer and upvotes it. (3) When the answer is upvoted the system sees that the user got to this question page by clicking a duplicate question link and upvotes the referring duplicate answer question. (Perhaps users should not be able to directly upvote duplicate question answers.) | |
| May 30, 2014 at 16:25 | comment | added | Matt | @JeremyCook: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/166844/… ;) | |
| May 30, 2014 at 16:17 | comment | added | Jeremy Cook | What if "Duplicate" was a specialized form of answer that can be voted on, and the system would interpret votes as how well the duplicate question helped users get to the question that had the answer that ultimately helped them. (Hopefully I'm not restating what others have already recommended.) | |
| May 30, 2014 at 15:45 | comment | added | Wayne Werner | I wonder if perhaps a voting for the correct dup would fix it? | |
| May 30, 2014 at 15:38 | comment | added | psubsee2003 | What about offering all people who have participated significantly in a canonical question (specifically improving the question or answer, or closing multiple questions as duplicate) a share of the rep rather than eliminating the rep like we do with CW questions. That should provide some incentive to people to actually improve the duplicate target to make it as good as it possibly can rather than just sniping easy rep for answering the newly posted duplicate question. We would obviously need some controls to prevent abuse though. | |
| May 30, 2014 at 14:38 | comment | added | Robert Harvey Mod | Note that we now give gold tag badge holders the ability to insta-close duplicates in that tag. | |
| May 30, 2014 at 14:11 | comment | added | Mat | @Duncan: The "abuse" I fear is people closing as dup without spending enough effort trying to find a good target. As Matt says, that's actually quite a bit of work. Too much incentive and people might get trigger-happy. (But too little and we get the current status - there are whole classes of questions that are repeated every other hour with slight variations that are simply easier to answer than to find a good dup; I plead guilty too.) Having known canonical Q&As would reduce the effort needed to find good targets - which should also reduce the need for incentivization. | |
| May 30, 2014 at 13:59 | comment | added | Matt Coubrough | Rewarding dupe finding has my vote. It takes time to search and find a posted answer that fits a question... often more than it takes to write an answer and claim some rep. And if the question asker couldn't be bothered to do it, why should we do it for them? | |
| May 30, 2014 at 13:53 | comment | added | Duncan Jones | @Mat I feel like a significant amount of effort would be required to canonicalize a question in a proper fashion. So perhaps there needs to be some kind of incentive to encourage this. What sort of abuse do you fear? | |
| May 30, 2014 at 13:49 | history | edited | Duncan Jones | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 46 characters in body
|
| May 30, 2014 at 13:47 | comment | added | Mat | I think you've got something interesting there, but I won't support this if there's rep involved, especially not while the dup hammer is still "under surveillance". That seriously sends shivers down my spine seeing how robo-reviewing happens with "only" badges as carrots. Having tools to identify (and "canonicalize") frequent dup targets sounds like great idea though. | |
| May 30, 2014 at 13:33 | history | answered | Duncan Jones | CC BY-SA 3.0 |