Timeline for answer to What’s Next for Curation by Dalija Prasnikar
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| yesterday | comment | added | Dalija Prasnikar Mod | Let's be realistic. Would you prefer seeing SG questions in your timeline and have curation as it-is now, or would you prefer having the new "improved" SO where you won't be able to close questions at all. Pick your battles please. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Dalija Prasnikar Mod | @l4mpi What I really don't understand here is how is that different from having to look at all the garbage questions asked on regular site. Yes, you cannot downvote them, but if they are really that bad you can easily review them and leave a canned comment which will make them "closed" and for off topic ones you don't even have to leave the comment. So basically besides downvoting those questions are moderable. Why all of the sudden nitpicking about seeing garbage when garbage was here all the time visible to all. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | l4mpi | Dalija, seriously? As I repeatedly said, yes of course we can not open such questions but if the list of questions consists of mostly such garbage then that advice is not helpful and will instead lead to people simply not opening SO at all. One individual bad Q is not a problem, but drowning in them is. And @Lundin I disagree that the core design is "bad" per se - it is IMO great for an Atwood-style "optimize for pearls not sand" site focused on building a great knowledge repo and not caring about excluding people who cannot contribute, just bad for a company trying to "welcome" everyone. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Dalija Prasnikar Mod | @Lundin I have no idea what you mean. We can see question score on the list of questions as well as whether question is currently closed or not. So it is very easy to filter out and not open such questions if you don't want to. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Lundin | @DalijaPrasnikar Experts are forced to view low quality content even when someone else has already reviewed it and seen that it is unanswerable crap perhaps of no interest to anyone. Even when the crap is closed down from answering, the experts are still forced to view it. Instead of instantly removing it from the public as soon as a sensible person found it the be low quality. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Dalija Prasnikar Mod | @Lundin You need to have some knowledge in order to curate most of the posts. You don't need that only for most obvious LQ ones. Experts are not forced to do anything, the only thing here on SO is that if you don't have enough reputation you are not allowed to do some things which you might otherwise be qualified for. But for most curation you still need some expertise in the subject and that is why relying on experts to leave comments or do other activities besides answering doesn't really have an alternative. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Lundin | That being said, it is far too late to fix this. SO is stuck with site culture, rep and voting because that's in the (bad) core design. Especially the company who owns the site can't fix it. We can only make a different site instead and then we might as well get rid of the useless company at the same time. Having an actor actively causing harm every day isn't great for a site that is struggling because of a bunch of other historical implementation reasons. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Lundin | One of the many core design flaws of SO were to force domain experts to view bad content hoping they would curate it, since if they are a technical domain expert then surely they are just as good at the completely unrelated thing that is site moderation, right? And because someone enjoys answering technical Java questions, then surely they also enjoy chewing through review queues or editing English grammar. What this badly designed system achieved in practice was just maximum friction between different kind of users, instead of creating a system with little to no friction. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | l4mpi | "to be fair your are overreacting" that is a really funny sentence; not exactly seeing what's fair about it as you failed to acknowledge my point that filling my question list with things I explicitly do not want to see and thus diluting the decent content further amounts to enshittification. Also, nothing you wrote is a decent argument for making SG non-optional, maybe for making it opt-out instead of opt-in, but I still want nothing to do with it. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Dalija Prasnikar Mod | Also SG is opt-in so many users are not even aware that they don't see all questions in the subject they could answer. SG is not longer the experiment and it needs to get properly on the site. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Dalija Prasnikar Mod | @l4mpi to be fair your are overreacting. The problem is not lack of volunteers, but those questions are not easily discoverable even for those people that do volunteer. I am saying that once question is reviewed (it can be a wrong review) it is gone from the list of questions, and you need to go actively into the SG to fish out such questions instead of them being visible on the timeline even for those people who do want to see it. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | l4mpi | Yes nobody is forcing me to open SG posts, but I'm saying forcing them into my list it would amount to enshittification similar to the whole native ads BS (which, luckily, are blockable). Also we had the same discussion recently - I never asked for better onboarding, and would be entirely fine with simply excluding users until they are capable of formulating questions that are not close-worthy. As I said, the problems you mention boil down to not enough people volunteering to act as mentors in the SG "onboarding" process. You don't "fix" that by shoving these posts into everyones face. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Dalija Prasnikar Mod | Again, nobody is forcing you to open SG questions. But properly functioning SG would be beneficial for the site. I am sorry if that would inconvenience you, but better onboarding for new users is what we actually asked for. It is just that currently SG is not properly functioning because of problems I mentioned in my post. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | l4mpi | And "How is posting a comment asking for clarification in SG question different than doing that on the main site?" - it's the same in that I don't want to do either. If a question is unclear to the point of being unanswerable, I simply want to closevote it (and probably downvote as well although that depends on the specifics, e.g. if it looks like low-effort trash or not) and have OP invest effort to fix it. I stopped commenting my closevotes a long time ago because of useless discussions with OPs who failed to understand SO rules and got defensive instead (or offensive, sometimes). | |
| yesterday | comment | added | l4mpi | "You don't have to open SG questions either as they are clearly marked" - yeah, you don't have to click on "native ads" as well as they are clearly marked, so I guess you don't have a problem with your feed being full of those? It's stuff I don't want to see and the list I'm scrolling through already contains more than enough noise, no need to add another category. Re "SG questions are generally not worse", maybe that's true because quality overall is abyssmal, but I looked around SG for a week after it was released and what I saw back then made me disinclined to see any more of it. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Dalija Prasnikar Mod | How is posting a comment asking for clarification in SG question different than doing that on the main site? This is exactly what many experts are doing right now. And if the question is in answerable state they can simply publish the question and then post an aswer. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Dalija Prasnikar Mod | @l4mpi I keep hearing this. But how is that different than the main site we had for years where such questions were part of it? You always had the ability to not open questions which could look like LQ ones. You don't have to open SG questions either as they are clearly marked as such. Also SG questions are generally not worse than other questions being posted. It seems to me that many people are completely missing the point of SG and what SG really is. It is not that SG somehow picks people who cannot formulate the question and sends them there, There are decent questions in SG, too. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | l4mpi | "Main problem with SG is that not enough experts" want to go to a place where the average question has even worse quality than on main. Your suggestion to make SG non-optional is from my PoV worse than just removing SG entirely. IMO the entire point is that these questions are somewhere else where people interested in mentoring users unable to formulate decent questions can do so, and I don't have to see them. If there are not enough mentors, then maybe take that as a sign that experts rarely want to provide free personal mentoring for randoms on the internet... | |
| 2 days ago | comment | added | Dalija Prasnikar Mod | @SecurityHound SG questions are preemptively closed. Only if it is not reviewed it will be automatically published in the 24 hours. If you choose Major changes or Off topic, or Opinion based review, it will have to be improved and then reviewed again. | |
| 2 days ago | history | answered | Dalija PrasnikarMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |