Timeline for answer to We need to improve the chances of reopening closed questions by yivi
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 3, 2020 at 17:51 | comment | added | Braiam | @MarkRansom Some numbers on these two answers meta.stackoverflow.com/a/355396/792066 meta.stackoverflow.com/a/266844/792066. TL;dr: editing raises the possibility of being reopened the most. Of course popularity helps, but I say that's for the wrong reasons. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 18:52 | comment | added | yivi | @Mark Because without editing, is simply impossible. We recommend it for the cases where it’s actually can happen, and the whole premise of the question is about being more effective in those cases. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 18:35 | comment | added | Mark Ransom | If it's really so rare for edits to make questions worthy of reopening, why do we consistently keep recommending that as the workflow? Seems pointless to me. | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 20:04 | comment | added | Magnetron | @yivi yeah, I missed the "first party" bit, sorry. About the check box for minor edits, it's a sugestion to how to implement what you mentioned in your answer (relatively substantial edit). | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 16:59 | comment | added | yivi | @Magnetron I think that's already mentioned in my answer, isn't it? "Not sending closed questions to the reopen queue until they got a relatively substantial first party edit [...]". | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 16:57 | comment | added | Magnetron | Another change that could be done to the reopen queue is that only when a question is edited by the OP it goes to the reopen queue. For the majority of questions, I don't believe that other person than the OP could turn a bad question into a good one. Also, it could be implemented a check box for edits to mark it as a minor edit, so it doesn't get bump into main page and to reopen queues. | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 18:44 | history | edited | yivi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 635 characters in body
|
| Oct 28, 2020 at 15:24 | comment | added | yivi | I stand by my previous comment. This is going fundamentally nowhere. I believe my answer does address the fundamental issues of your posed question: alleviating the difficulty of reopening questions that deserve reopening. All the rest is just noise and unnecessary distraction. Please don't take it wrongly but I believe further discussion is sterile. Bye! | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 15:09 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | “The vast majority of learning is performed by people reading existing posts, not by asking questions.” — Passive learning is fundamentally limited. Almost nobody asks a good question the first time they try. This is simply a fact that we need to account for in our response to such questions (in general, but in particular in the context of facilitating reopening), and it is this fact which your opening sentence neglects. I’m not getting side-tracked, I’m focused on this one issue here. | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 15:05 | comment | added | yivi | I believe you either got sidetracked, or your original question does not reflect your motivation. | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 15:05 | comment | added | yivi | No @Konrad, you are wrong. The they are polite and nice and friendly is as irrelevant as all the rest. What matters are the posts. I'm all for reopening questions that became good, which was your original thrust. Now you are going all around about "blocking people from learning", which is unrelated. The vast majority of learning is performed by people reading existing posts, not by asking questions. Asking (good) questions just feeds more fuel into the machine so that future learners can benefit from. | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 15:00 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @yivi And my comment is explicitly about reopening questions, not about closing too many questions. And it is in that context that the first sentence of your answer is deeply problematic. | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 14:59 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @yivi But you’re wrong, it is about the people asking questions. And, yes, how nice/polite/friendly they are is irrelevant, which is why I didn’t mention it. What matters is that asking good questions is a learned skill, and it’s on us to guide this process. Blocking people from learning the ropes is counter-productive and fundamentally misguided. | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 14:28 | comment | added | yivi | @Konrad It's not about the posters being well-intentioned, intelligent, nice, diligent, polite friendly and frankly wonderful people all around that I like a lot and would love to help. It's about the questions. It's about the site. And I do remember how hard it is asking good questions, but those are the questions we want. I thought that the question was about reopening questions that weren't fit to begin with, but got salvaged. Nice! Totally on board with that! Now your comment seems to revolve about "we close too many questions", which I can't align myself with. | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 14:22 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | There’s a lot of good stuff in this answer but I intensely dislike the first sentence. You (like many of us, occasionally me included!) seem to forget how hard it is to ask a good question. Let there be no doubt, it’s really hard. I know many very intelligent, highly educated people (we’re talking post-PhD level here) who have difficulty understanding what relevant context to include into a programming-related question, and which details are important vs. which ones aren’t. The questions we’re talking about here are by these people: well-intentioned, intelligent, diligent but inexperienced | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 14:08 | comment | added | yivi | @csgillespie No, I'm not assuming such thing at all. Rather, it's you the one making assumptions about my thought process. But I think that's not the problem this question tries to address, but that of the questions that are closed and later fixed. In any case, relaying on the close-voters for "questions closed incorrectly" seems rather inefficient, for that the second part of the answer, optimizing the way the reopen queue worked, would be a better fit. | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 14:07 | comment | added | user1937198 | I'm thinking more on trying to make the fact that you get exactly one attempt to edit to trigger the reopen queue a bit more clear at the point of the edit might help. | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 14:06 | comment | added | csgillespie | "the onus is on the asker... " - you are assuming that no questions are closed incorrectly | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 14:04 | comment | added | yivi | @user1937198 Maybe. I think that's been mentioned elsewhere as well. I think that the effect that would have would be mostly accidental (by some users missing out in the hypothetical checkbox). I don't think that adding UI friction is way to go, but having smarter flows and triggers. | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 14:02 | history | edited | yivi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 23 characters in body
|
| Oct 28, 2020 at 14:01 | comment | added | user1937198 | Maybe sending things to the reopen queue should be an explicit opt in that an editor can choose once. This would allow editors to defer sending to the reopen queue posts that they know are insufficient, whilst make it clear to the OP that they need to get everything sorted before sending to the queue. | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 13:51 | history | edited | yivi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Oct 28, 2020 at 13:50 | comment | added | toolic | you had me at "the onus is on the asker... " :) | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 13:47 | history | answered | yivi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |