Timeline for answer to The user research behind Discussions by user400654
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 28, 2023 at 15:48 | comment | added | user400654 | Effectively, you identified a problem and implemented something to solve it... without getting the community involved in figuring out whether A) it's actually a problem, and B) if maybe there's better ways to solve it. | |
| Aug 28, 2023 at 14:40 | comment | added | user400654 | More often than not, this "research" method feels like a thinly veiled justification for a paid or otherwise marketing/profit related venture rather than something the community actually needs/wants. | |
| Aug 28, 2023 at 14:31 | comment | added | user400654 | I agree, that there's some value there, but the value is within our existing guidelines. There's a reason a subset of subjective questions are allowed. I have trouble trusting "We've heard from many users" when there's no data with questions the data is based on. That reason has been used repeatedly over the past 10 years to push forward awful changes. | |
| Aug 28, 2023 at 14:19 | comment | added | Lizbee Staff | As for this being new on Stack, you're right that this is new for the platform which is why we wanted to test this on the site with the least amount of interruption to the core experience. The idea that our attention to the sub-communities has shined a detrimental light hasn't come up in our research but it's a point we'll make sure to watch for as research continues. When we conducted research with users who aren't Collectives members but participate in related tags, the most common reason those users weren't members was due to issues with discovery (a whole separate issue being worked on.) | |
| Aug 28, 2023 at 14:15 | comment | added | Lizbee Staff | We believe subjective content can make a positive contribution to the SO knowledge base when it comes to high-level technical decisions and approaches. We heard from many users that at a certain point, the "problem" they're trying to solve is less about a coding issue and more related to weighing trade offs of decisions. For nuanced situations there might not be one objectively right answer, but there is still valuable knowledge to be gained from subjective answers. We agree link-dropping & statements without supporting details are low quality which is why the guidelines encourage more detail. | |
| Aug 24, 2023 at 0:24 | comment | added | user400654 | I don't think subjective content is bad, rather, I don't think it's what should come up when someone is trying to solve any regular problem. If that's the kind of content they're looking for, great, show it to them. (semantic search should be great at figuring out intent in this case, right?) | |
| Aug 24, 2023 at 0:19 | comment | added | user400654 | Let me rephrase. Subjective content can always be "useful" if one just wants any opinion that sounds right from a random person on the internet, possibly with some interweb points on SO, but there's nothing there to really judge how... "correct" that content is. Yes, we have voting, but history has shown even wrong answers often get upvoted... that isn't the best tool for it. with non-subjective content, the content is objectively provable, anyone can take the solution and try it for themselves to validate it. | |
| Aug 24, 2023 at 0:15 | comment | added | user400654 | @chivracq subjective content from people with credentials is valuable. Subjective content from every random person with an opinion is not. | |
| Aug 23, 2023 at 17:56 | history | answered | user400654 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |