Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 157 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

This should be obvious. If a post is helpful to others, it receives many upvotes, raising its score. Such a post is obviously hardly "low quality". Especially if the asker accepted the post. Unfortunately, a substantial amount of "low quality posts" on the review page meet this criterion.

This is an example (using the Reverse Order sort ordering).

To address this, I make the following suggestions:

  • Exclude posts with a score of 5 or more from the low quality posts.
  • Optional: Accepted answers can have a lower score threshold to be removed.
  • Optional: Posts from users with a certain reputation threshold can be removed with a lower score threshold.

These are only initial suggestions which can be modified if needed. Please discuss this idea.


After reading another question on meta recently asked today, I will now suggest that the following posts should stay in the "low quality posts" tab, regardless of score:

  • Answers to questions that are closed or have one or more close votes
  • Answers to questions with a negative score

These should stay in because they tend to point to questions that themselves are low-quality. (Optionally those questions should be mentioned on the page along with their score and, for users with the "view close votes" privilege, the number of close votes.)

share|improve this question
    
Have these particular posts been harshly dealt with? – Robert Harvey Jan 20 '12 at 0:55
1  
@Robert Harvey: No, such posts merely detract from finding the posts which probably truly are low quality. Those tend to have a negative or zero score or have content problems that "can't be salvageable through editing." – Peter O. Jan 20 '12 at 0:58

I see, you're referring to the algorithmic check, which is largely based on length. Short "answers".

I am not sure I entirely agree; if a question is "answered" with something absurdly short enough to trigger the quality filter like 3 - 5 words, that implies there was a fundamental problem with the question, as in, perhaps the question was too trivial to begin with?

For example

How to find if directory exists in Python

Yes, use os.path.exists().

is a valid "answer", but was algorithmically determined to be possibly low quality. (Note that this is not a flag, just a numeric score attached to the answer.) However, if you check the comments:

A good approach is always to search since that's been asked.

Therefore this flag is symptomatic of a deeper problem. This has always been my position on flagging: where there is smoke, there is generally fire. For some reason people get obsessed with deciding exactly what kind of fire this is, when there's a giant raging fire going on on the background. How 'bout we put out the fire, man?

share|improve this answer
    
Your point is somewhat valid: the "low quality posts" tab gives no clues on whether a question is already answered, especially for "fastest-gun questions" (and I'm not sure it should.) – Peter O. Jan 20 '12 at 1:08
    
go deeper: we shouldn't be encouraging questions than can actually be properly and completely answered in 3-5 words! – Jeff Atwood Jan 20 '12 at 1:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .