What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 127 Stack Exchange communities.

I've noticed recently a trend of old questions being closed and/or deleted as inappropriate. It seems that when I wasn't looking, a new sheriff rode into town and decided that a lot of borderline questions should go away. As noted in Do not lock old questions, a lot of these questions were never "appropriate" according to the new criteria, but people keep visiting them and upvoting answers, so they must have some value.

And yes, I am upset that my favorite among all 1500 answers I have ever written on SO, which just recently earned a gold badge, has disappeared. If 100 people upvote an answer, it seems as if it ought to have a place somewhere in the Stack Exchange ecosystem. But this is just the most painful of a number of recent closings and deletions.

I searched meta and saw a few related questions, but I'd love to hear from those who have some insight into what's going on. It seems like maybe while I wasn't paying attention, our community got very focused on keeping things on the straight and narrow.

UPDATE: I just noticed that in the last 3 days I lost 1600 reputation to deleted questions. So now I'm really curious as to what's going on...

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Michael Petrotta, Mark Trapp, Diago, Josh Caswell, kiamlaluno Mar 3 '12 at 13:52

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1  
thanks to the no-comment, no-response downvote closer for making my case for me –  Norman Ramsey Mar 3 '12 at 5:09
3  
Stack Overflow is not what it once was. I've had a lot of my old stuff slowly deleted over the past year, most of it now off-topic or subjective based on the rules that were created after I posted it. What the new rep changes have done is enabled me to see exactly when these deletions happened. –  Kyle Cronin Mar 3 '12 at 5:28
5  
6  
To be able to use the number of votes as a measure of importance, we would have to keep all new off-topic questions open a couple of years to see if they too attract lots of votes. That's not what we want. –  Bo Persson Mar 3 '12 at 7:32
    
1  
@JoshCaswell: what are you trying to achieve by trying to close this as a duplicate? with the low rep you have, and with the practices engaged in by the meta-police (like, deleting unwanted discussions), one must suspect that you are a sock puppet. no real user could be that confused. –  Alf P. Steinbach Mar 3 '12 at 8:53
2  
@BoPersson: that's misrepresentation. nobody suggested that a measure of importance should be introduced. and you know that. hence, proved, you are trying to make readers believe something that you know is false, which is called "lying". also, your use of "we" is highly dubious. who do you say you're representing? hundreds of votes do speak against wanton deletion. that is different from using a low number of votes to justify such wanton deletetion. –  Alf P. Steinbach Mar 3 '12 at 8:58
2  
I'd chime in to agree with the OP, but what's the point? We all know that people who merely post content on SO are infinitely less important than those who delete it. We're not relevant. It's a lost battle. –  jalf Mar 3 '12 at 9:37
4  
@alf - a now deleted comment suggested that 600 rep must indicate a high value, so these posts should be kept because of that. I argue that in that case new posts should also be kept open so we can see if they will accumulate votes over time. Why are old off-topic questions valuable, when similar new questions are not? –  Bo Persson Mar 3 '12 at 11:36
2  
@Alf: Wow. The amount of confusion you've evinced in your comment is astounding. I might just as well say "With your three posts on Meta, and with the repeated whining about deletion of old content (and conspiracy theorizing about 'meta-police'), one must suspect that you're a sock puppet." –  Josh Caswell Mar 3 '12 at 18:15
1  
@BoPersson: "Why are old off-topic questions valuable, when similar new questions are not?" that's a third misrepresentation from you. nobody's put any value judgment on new questions, posted under new effective rules. there simply is not any strong evidence of what the real community desires regarding the myriad not-yet-voted-on new questions that are now posted under new effective rules. existing sexually explicit gargoyles, "Sheela na gigs", in churches in England are of proven value, but that does not mean that new ones would be acceptable or should be given any trial period. –  Alf P. Steinbach Mar 3 '12 at 18:37
add comment

Browse other questions tagged .