Timeline for answer to How does the continued decline in posts since May '25 influence our interpretation of the state of SO? by TylerH
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 26 at 14:07 | comment | added | TylerH | @einpoklum Yes; I'm confident there are several million questions+ of no value to anyone but the asker on the site, and likely not even to them anymore today. There's no need for the system to keep them around. There are also probably a lot (maybe not in the millions, but certainly thousands if not tens of thousands or more) of old questions that we should migrate to other sites but don't because "we don't migrate stuff older than 6 months" (as if that is an actual reason). | |
| Jan 26 at 11:10 | history | edited | Adriaan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed broken link
|
| Jan 15 at 16:44 | comment | added | einpoklum | @TylerH : So, are you saying we should keep around the questions you said are not worthy of keeping around? | |
| Jan 15 at 15:52 | comment | added | TylerH | @einpoklum Suggesting that there are only X number of questions worth keeping around does not mean I am suggesting we get rid of all others because "they are not popular". There are other, more important reasons to delete questions, which almost always apply. | |
| Jan 15 at 9:57 | comment | added | einpoklum | @JohnMontgomery: It says that there are probably not even 600,000 good questions on the site that are "worth keeping around", and thus, all the other questions are not worth keeping around - including hundreds of thousands that are useful to a few people, again according to TylerH. | |
| Jan 14 at 22:48 | comment | added | John Montgomery | @einpoklum I see nothing in that paragraph that suggests removing anything at all, much less because of popularity. | |
| Jan 14 at 22:29 | comment | added | einpoklum | @JohnMontgomery: In paragraph 3. | |
| Jan 14 at 21:14 | comment | added | TylerH | @einpoklum John's already address the first part of your comment above. As for the second, I know this because I have been at the forefront of curation for a long time and I know it is very small group, relative to the size of the site. Re: your third question: yes, to an extent. It's still good to allow and encourage new questions and answers, so long as they're high quality. The issue with bygone eras is that there was little to nothing done to ensure new questions and answers were high quality, rather opting for high quantity instead. | |
| Jan 14 at 20:00 | comment | added | John Montgomery | @einpoklum Where does this answer suggest getting rid of questions just because they aren't popular? Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see it. | |
| Jan 14 at 18:28 | comment | added | einpoklum | As if it's not bad enough that questions on SO are often met with a slew of downvotes rather than suggestions for improvement, you're now suggesting we get rid of questions (and answers?) not because there's anything wrong with them, just because they're not about popular subjects. On another note: How do we know that the base of users willing to do curation is so small as not to be able to handle thousands of questions for month? And anohter question: If there are less questions, should we not focus on encouraging people to use their time for curating older ones? | |
| Jan 14 at 16:39 | history | answered | TylerH | CC BY-SA 4.0 |