Timeline for We will launch the 1-rep voting experiment on Stack Overflow for 4–6 weeks, along with account creation prompts [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
94 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Apr 5, 2024 at 15:59 | history | notice added | MachavityMod | Historical significance | |
| S Apr 5, 2024 at 15:59 | history | locked | MachavityMod | ||
| Apr 5, 2024 at 15:58 | history | edited | MachavityMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added a note to the postponement post
|
| Apr 5, 2024 at 14:58 | history | edited | HoidStaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 5, 2024 at 14:58 | history | closed | HoidStaffMod | Duplicate of Pausing the 1-rep voting experiment on Stack Overflow: reflecting on the feedback and rethinking the approach | |
| Apr 5, 2024 at 14:31 | comment | added | Sayse | @Lundin - I'm not convinced that even their coffee mug would work. I guess I'll wait for a blog post to tell me how I'm wrong and the new coffee mug is what I really want | |
| Apr 5, 2024 at 13:43 | answer | added | ColleenV | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 5, 2024 at 13:27 | comment | added | Lundin | Well you managed to get 200+ users down-voting this proposal so... mission accomplished...? I was going to post an answer but I can't even be bothered trying to act like I care about the site any longer. Is there a way a can trade in my rep for a coffee mug or something? | |
| Apr 5, 2024 at 7:37 | comment | added | SPArcheon | @JimGarrison no, I got what you meant. I was actually doubling down on that. Not only users are put down by a decrease in quality, they are also constantly triggered by announcement like this one. I think it is pretty evident that whatever "fall in engagement" they detected is more likely to be caused by established user burndown than by "oh, no, I need 15 rep to vote!" Furthermore, new "wanna-be" users failing their onboarding and not turning into regular is not a "fall in engagement" since those weren't yet engaged in the first place. They should be talking about "fall in new accounts" | |
| Apr 5, 2024 at 7:10 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | For at least a year now, it feels like 90% of meta posts that come from the company get received strongly negative. Can one say that the divide between the company and the meta community probably never was greater (except maybe at the end of 2019). | |
| Apr 5, 2024 at 7:05 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | Just as a comment. I would have tested such a strong change from merit-based voting privileges to everyone is equal and can vote on a smaller site first. Preferably one that volunteers for it. Even if you would decide that the house got on fire and you undo the changes, the damage done might already be lasting. Also I don't understand the secrecy about the start date. The test group will eventually find out what privileges they have, but for a real live experiment, you want them to find out as soon as they have the ability, don't you? | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 22:31 | comment | added | user4581301 | I hope it doesn't trigger anything and is instead not executed. A change like this needs a smurfload of research and experimentation before it should be attempted on a live server. Kind-of a catch 22, that. | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 22:19 | comment | added | Joman68 | This is a terrible idea and I genuinely hope that it triggers another moderator strike. | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 22:17 | answer | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 21:57 | comment | added | Jim Garrison | @SPArcheon I think you misread my comment. My point was that the biggest contributor to stagnating participation is the poor quality of questions and answers. It is quite frightening that Google is going to use SO content to train its AI, | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 21:17 | comment | added | starball Mod | @TylerH no, I think Adrian Mole was (mainly) talking about the -1 cost of casting a downvote. Adrian does have the option of leaving reviews in LQA with no comment if they want to avoid raising attention to themselves in their reviews there. | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 21:12 | comment | added | TylerH | @SpencerG Adrian wasn't talking about the downvote cost to the voter, but the rep loss that is applied to the recipient of said vote. It isn't clear whether "downvote cost" covers this as well. | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 20:02 | comment | added | user4581301 | Has anyone considered the distortion from cheap-and-easy mercy <expletive deleted> upvotes yet? | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 19:57 | history | edited | Michael come lately | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
More semantic headers
|
| Apr 4, 2024 at 18:54 | answer | added | gparyani | timeline score: 12 | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 18:10 | comment | added | Fastnlight | i.sstatic.net/03Wp4.jpg | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 18:04 | history | edited | starballMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Apr 4, 2024 at 18:01 | history | edited | starballMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Apr 4, 2024 at 16:28 | answer | added | Ian Boyd | timeline score: -28 | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 15:04 | history | edited | M-- | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
'Stack Overflow' is the legal name; spelling;
|
| Apr 4, 2024 at 14:37 | comment | added | Alejandro | @SpencerG Suspended users would just create another account and use that to vote, that's why the reputation limit exists and what it protects against. Removing it effectively means that anyone (including anonymous and suspended users) can vote anything. | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 14:31 | comment | added | Hoid StaffMod | @MartinSmith Suspended users will still be unable to vote. | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 13:57 | comment | added | Hoid StaffMod | @AdrianMole As referenced in the original announcement, the downvote cost is being removed for the duration of the experiment. | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 13:30 | comment | added | Alejandro | Just don't do this. We all know it's doomed to failure. | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 13:25 | answer | added | motosubatsu | timeline score: 22 | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 12:27 | comment | added | Abdul Aziz Barkat | Here's some context about JonSG's comment: meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/427414/… | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 12:17 | comment | added | JonSG | There are already academic class farms that abuse this site with template driven crap. Do you not expect that they will form voting rings with their classmates? | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 11:43 | comment | added | SPArcheon | @JimGarrison As I wrote in my answer, I am quite sure that promising that you won't run a test on a site after every mod told you how bad that would be and then doing it anyway will cause far more "participation stagnation" that being unable to vote. | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 9:04 | comment | added | Sayse | Why the bias towards downvoting? Wouldn't the prompts be equally as useful to an upvote to see if the reasoning matches up with what the site currently defines as criteria for an upvote? | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 8:53 | comment | added | Gimby | I see one positive in this. At least there is some acknowledgement that there is a problem, the silence has been deafening for a long time now. Not sure the right problem is being focussed on here though. Voting does not seem like a really big deal to me, reviewing is. And also awareness of what Stack Overflow is and isn't before signing up and posting the first ill-fated questions. So... yeah not too impressed with the fact that this is not an April fools joke. | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 8:45 | comment | added | einpoklum | Terrible idea, any outcome is undesirable fundamentally and inherently, motivation is invalid, SE inc. lost-in-space and divorced from reality, what more can I say? | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 8:20 | comment | added | SPArcheon | @tripleee The mere fact that they said that they will wait "6 weeks max" (less than two months, that is NOTHING) before drawing their own conclusions (weird, I get the vibe that the conclusions are already there and this is just a pretense) means that any "smart enough" bad actor will just wait until this smart move is definitive before going all out on the abuse. This idiocy is like advertising on national TV that you will test disabling all the alarms in your banks and if no robbery happens in the first week you will keep it forever and expecting something to happen in the first week | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 7:46 | comment | added | Rob Grant | I know this is the least of the issues with this post, but it's "we are not sharing at this juncture", not "junction". | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 7:16 | comment | added | tripleee | I meant to mention that the standard joke is "6 to 8 weeks", not 4 to 6. But seriously, the time period seems too short to really tell you whether this is working. The proverbial feces will really hit the fan when the likes of 4chan decide to exploit the vulnerability you decided to create, which will not necessarily happen within a few weeks of starting your experiment. | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 6:44 | comment | added | Karl Knechtel | The entire point of testing something before rolling it out fully is to avoid saddling 90-odd percent of the user base with the consequences before you know whether it's a good idea. | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 6:39 | comment | added | pl-jay | Stackoverflow isn't about QnA anymore it's all about useless reputation n badges | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 6:33 | comment | added | Martin Smith | Does this mean suspended users are also free to downvote? Is there some other mechanism preventing users suspended for trolling from doing this than the adjustment to 1 reputation? | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 6:26 | answer | added | srn | timeline score: 21 | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 6:05 | answer | added | Redz | timeline score: 11 | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 5:51 | answer | added | InSync | timeline score: 17 | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 5:41 | comment | added | Redz | Just announcing this has already set the house smoking, I think. | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 3:51 | comment | added | QHarr | This coffin sure does have a lot of shiny nails. | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 2:02 | history | edited | Ðаn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
typography
|
| Apr 4, 2024 at 1:52 | comment | added | ggorlen | Time for another strike? | |
| Apr 4, 2024 at 0:31 | history | edited | starballMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Apr 3, 2024 at 21:20 | history | edited | starballMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 103 characters in body
|
| Apr 3, 2024 at 21:10 | comment | added | Jim Garrison | "...stagnating participation on the network is a concern for all of us..." - And you know for a fact that not being able to vote until you have some rep is the cause of "stagnating participation", instead of, say, the abysmal quality of most posts nowadays? | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 20:34 | history | edited | HoidStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
date correction
|
| Apr 3, 2024 at 20:28 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | I have a bad feeling about this... | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 20:25 | comment | added | user1937198 | How much actual time to the CM team expect to being able to dedicate to this experiment? Can you dedicate a full time member of the CM to investigating fraud from now until the experiment to ensure you understand the impact? | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 20:15 | answer | added | Erik A | timeline score: 34 | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 20:10 | comment | added | Flexo - Save the data dump Mod | @user4581301 it's already trivial to find more fraud than mods can handle | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 19:51 | comment | added | DBS | There's definitely a little irony in making it "free" for new (1rep) inexperienced users to downvote, while people who are more likely to recognise good/suitable content are given a -1rep for each downvote. It is now actively "profitable" to have a second account used exclusively for downvoting (Not suggesting that, it's obviously against the rules, but people WILL abuse this system) | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 19:28 | comment | added | user4581301 | You're going to get fraud. You're going to get a <expletive deleted>ton of fraud. But the really interesting one to watch will be the non-fraudulent folks who upvote bad content like UB-laden hacks and downvote correct-but-complicated content because they don't understand how deep a pit they're jumping into. It's the "toxicity" of Stack Overflow that makes its content generally trustworthy. | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 19:01 | answer | added | starballMod | timeline score: 39 | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 18:39 | answer | added | gnat | timeline score: 14 | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 18:03 | comment | added | Adrian Mole | Can't find any other reference to this, so: What happens to the rep. of a user with 1 point when they downvote an answer? If I do that, I lose a point but a 1-rep user can't lose their point. So, can I expect all my posts to get downvotes when I delete an NAA post from a new user in the LQA review queue? All-in-all, this seems like a very poorly-thought-about change. | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 18:00 | comment | added | MT1 | The mistake here is the if the house is on fire the damage can just be rolled back because it's only a website. Wrong! | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 17:51 | answer | added | SPArcheon | timeline score: 45 | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 17:40 | comment | added | Thom A Mod | That this proposal has been so badly received by the Stack Overflow community (mods and users), and despite other communities wanted to try it (as it may well better for their model) really throws mud in the face of a different recent announcement. | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 17:37 | answer | added | bad_coder | timeline score: 17 | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 17:12 | answer | added | Dalija PrasnikarMod | timeline score: 76 | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 16:39 | answer | added | TylerH | timeline score: 51 | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 16:34 | answer | added | Largato | timeline score: 63 | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 16:14 | comment | added | Thom A Mod | I could say "original intentions" then, @AndrasDeak--СлаваУкраїні , as that was certainly Shog9's goal, and it is (most of the active) community's goal. | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 16:12 | comment | added | Andras Deak -- Слава Україні | @ThomA to state the obvious: the owners of the site have different intentions, so "intended" depends on the speaker. | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 16:11 | comment | added | Rob Grant | "We need to run a test to determine what is true and what isn’t to see if this is a worthwhile change or a terrible one" the idea that UX tests will give you a forever truth isn't one to be taken literally. It's marketing from UX consultancies. It's a single test that will give you some data that you shouldn't over-interpret. | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 16:04 | comment | added | Thom A Mod | The fact that the site has many of the answers we are looking for, when we're suggested the post in our favourite search engine, means that site is working as intended. There's a limit to what new questions can be asked today and are actually good new questions, because many of those questions have answers; it's only the incredibly localised problems and new features/technologies that are really outside of the "already answered box". It's rare I don't find the answer I'm looking for when I search a problem for a language I'm not an SME in. That's not concerning; quite the opposite. | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 15:46 | answer | added | Bryan Krause | timeline score: 70 | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 15:43 | answer | added | Thom AMod | timeline score: 24 | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 15:33 | comment | added | Thom A Mod | "We are still pursuing this because stagnating participation on the network is a concern for all of us" is it a concern for all of us? Stagnation is expected as the site achieves it goal of being a repository of knowledge, and I think it's done well at achieving that. Stack Overflow, as a company, might be concerned, but that's because companies like OpenAI have ripped the content that we, the users you are ignoring, have written for you for free and they (OpenAI) haven't given you a penny. Diluted the future vote pool with 1 rep user votes will not help this. | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 15:09 | comment | added | Tensibai | FFS, please, fix the bugs first. What makes it hard to onboard people is not the voting system, it's the thousands papercut to keep the site quality which gives newcomers a harsh entrance. If after two strikes and all the posts you're still not figuring that out you're just aiming a footgun and pulling hard on the trigger. | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 15:06 | comment | added | Richard | And meanwhile the real needed feature of "two factor authentication" is ignored. | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 15:06 | comment | added | NathanOliver | @Zoeisonstrike Thanks for the confirmation. You mods already have too much to deal with. I do have to kind of laugh at this situation as I explicitly did not run for moderator because I can't trust SO to keep their word on things, and what do we have here... | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 15:04 | answer | added | Shog9 | timeline score: 94 | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 15:02 | answer | added | Abdul Aziz Barkat | timeline score: 21 | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 15:01 | comment | added | Zoe - Save the data dump Mod | @NathanOliver A couple mods have talked about resigning if this test moved forward (and the company knows about those discussions). We'll see if they go through with it or not, but you're absolutely not alone in that boat | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 14:42 | answer | added | user400654 | timeline score: 15 | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 14:42 | answer | added | Journeyman Geek | timeline score: 46 | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 14:39 | history | edited | HoidStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 16 characters in body
|
| Apr 3, 2024 at 14:36 | answer | added | Thomas Owens | timeline score: 74 | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 14:34 | comment | added | NathanOliver | Please do not do this. I get you need to make money but burning down the site that made buying it attractive is not the way to go about it. We have way too much work to do already and we do this work for free. I am about to say F it and just walk away pretty soon. I guess one user doesn't matter but I think others are in the same boat as I am. | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 14:25 | comment | added | Machavity Mod | @ErikA See the section labeled One Testing Site in the post. Talks about it on point. | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 14:23 | comment | added | Zoe - Save the data dump Mod | @ErikA SO did not volunteer (multiple SO mods actively object as well, myself included), they went back on their promise about volunteer sites, they picked SO because they want "more data" (and they lack the foresight to understand the incredible fallout this will result in by running the tests on millions of users) | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 14:22 | comment | added | Erik A | When this was announced, there was a discussion about sites volunteering and sites being chosen where the impact would be little. Did Stack Overflow volunteer? If not, why was it chosen? | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 14:22 | history | edited | AndyMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 3, 2024 at 14:22 | answer | added | AndyMod | timeline score: 152 | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 14:22 | comment | added | Zoe - Save the data dump Mod | The company has already been made aware of the many ways this can be abused, and the significant workload increase this will lead to when people notice, and that the tooling we have is nowhere close to capable of dealing with the kinds and volume of abuse this will cause. They have not responded to our concerns, and many mods (including multiple SO mods) have objected to the change from allowing sites to volunteer for the test to shoving it on SO. They did not care about the objections. | |
| Apr 3, 2024 at 14:18 | history | asked | HoidStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
