Timeline for answer to We need to improve the chances of reopening closed questions by TheMaster
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 19, 2024 at 3:30 | comment | added | TheMaster | @PeterMortensen I guess reviewing based on external appearances - presence or absence of code, markdown usage for beautiful appearance or bad appearance etc. rather than actual meat of the question. | |
| Jan 19, 2024 at 2:17 | comment | added | Peter Mortensen | What do you mean by "looks based reviewers" (seems incomprehensible)? | |
| Jan 18, 2024 at 20:49 | history | edited | TheMaster | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 27 characters in body
|
| Jan 18, 2024 at 19:13 | history | edited | TheMaster | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 28 characters in body
|
| Jun 24, 2023 at 7:16 | comment | added | Thom A Mod | So that future readers know the content is useful/helpful, @TheMaster . You added emphasis on the wrong place. That future reader may then also vote on that content. The cycle continues. | |
| Jun 24, 2023 at 5:38 | comment | added | TheMaster | It clearly says it is communicating to future readers and adds that comments are for the poster. It also says votes are not exactly a way of "communicating with the poster". Do you at least see the inconsistency in claiming it's both for the op on one hand and not for the op, on the other hand? [2/2] | |
| Jun 24, 2023 at 5:29 | comment | added | TheMaster | @ThomA When you say it is for the content, you also say it is for future readers. The meta answer that stated this entire rule says this clearly: Downvotes are, first and foremost, a content rating system. Rather than being a way of communicating with the poster, they are a way of communicating to future readers that a question or answer is not interesting or useful. If someone wants to leave a comment to communicate with the poster, they can always do so, independent of the voting system. [1/2] | |
| Jun 23, 2023 at 17:27 | comment | added | Thom A Mod | I fail to see how that's hypocrisy; are you saying that users who downvote should be taking the time to transcribe the code from an image? Do the research for the user? Show the user's attempts they failed to demonstrate? Why would the rest of the user base do that, @TheMaster . The author of the post is the only user who can improve a low quality post that is lacking detail and missing information. Any other user that did that would be hallucinating. The vote is for the content and if the user decides to improve their post because it received downvotes maybe those votes will be changed. | |
| Feb 27, 2023 at 10:41 | comment | added | TheMaster | @Stef I agree. Meta seems to hold inconsistent opinions on this: On one hand, they say Votes are only for judging "content" and not the "user", i.e., they're not "personal". I made a proposal then, to hide the votes from the "user", but then they turn around and say votes are essential for the user to change the "content". They maintain this hypocrisy to avoid any challenge to the status quo. | |
| Feb 27, 2023 at 10:24 | comment | added | Stef | One additional reason why so many questions are not edited after they are closed is because the closing process is so hostile. The close-votes are often accompanied by downvotes. When you're a new user and you post a question and immediately receive 3 downvotes and 3 closevotes, you're not encouraged to edit your question, you're encouraged to delete your question in shame. The feeling is similar to entering a room and asking a question, and the six people in the room jump at you and all simultaneously yell at you that everything you're asking is stupid. | |
| Nov 4, 2020 at 4:49 | comment | added | TheMaster | @Braiam I'm sure you'd agree that such closed "old" questions account for a minor part in that 23%- I would say, based on experience that they're almost negligible. Most of that closed questions are those that are asked in the last 30days. | |
| Nov 3, 2020 at 18:24 | comment | added | Mark Ransom | @KonradRudolph I've accidentally reopened questions that I didn't intend to, thinking others would need to agree with me first. I can't even keep track of all the tags I have gold badges on now. | |
| Nov 3, 2020 at 18:03 | comment | added | Braiam | "23.68% of questions asked get closed" That's an odd statement to say, so I went around checking what the screen says, and figured out what happened: questions closed on that percentage, has no relationship with questions asked other than both happened in the last 30 days. If a question asked in 2014 was closed in the last 30 days, it would be counted here. That 23% looks very impressive, but that's probably only because we are trying to clean the cruft of the non-compliant questions that weren't timely closed. BTW, if 90% of everything is crap, we need to pick up the slack. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 19:29 | comment | added | einpoklum | The reopen stats are "the wrong stats": There should be some careful examination of some sample closed questions, by people congizant of this question - as an experiment, to determine what fraction of closed questions "should", given enough attention, be reopened. Then we should devide the actual fraction of reopened questions by this fraction. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 2:28 | history | edited | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Active reading [<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/positive#Adjective>]. Expanded.
|
| Oct 29, 2020 at 23:40 | comment | added | TheMaster | @KonradRudolph Although I agree Duplicate questions are reopened frequently. The opposite is also true, they only require 1 close vote from gold badge. This is especially important in tags where there aren't many gold badge holders. I agree with Justin on the fact that Some questions are closed as duplicates based on a cursory read of the question, which may not be true on a closer look. | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 22:13 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @M.Justin Duplicates already have a smoother pass, since they only require a single reopen vote from a gold tag badge user. In practice, this kind of reopening happens frequently (again, don’t have numbers but this is my experience and I’m sure SEDE would corroborate this). This is good, but it’s not sufficient. | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 21:40 | comment | added | TheMaster | @KonradRudolph I think you can find the extent of edits using a SEDE query, but it still won't let you know the quality of those edits, which is much more important. | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 19:17 | comment | added | M. Justin | Thanks for calling out the difference between the two types. The first type seems like it should get a smoother pass to reopening. A specific instance I have in mind are duplicate questions: a quick read making reviewers think it's a duplicate question, but a closer read shows that they're not really duplicates at all. I've also had a question sit in limbo of the second type, where it was deemed too broad. I narrowed the focus with an edit, but was unable to get it reopened despite that. I wonder if there's therefore certain types of close reasons that should be more visible. | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 19:02 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | Thanks for this summary. It’s unfortunate that the statistics don’t tell us the extent of the editing — it’s entirely possible that the majority of the edits are minor or bad, and thus the questions really don’t warrant reopening (obviously I don’t believe this!). Even so, the reopen numbers are shockingly even lower than I thought. | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 18:28 | history | answered | TheMaster | CC BY-SA 4.0 |