What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 128 Stack Exchange communities.

Currently, SE employees are given diamonds wherever they need them. I agree with Jeff on this to some degree, employees shouldn't be treated any different.

But... on meta, employees are different. They have the power to dole out official responses, and thus we should be able to differentiate between an employee and a normal user. Currently, only some employees have a diamond on MSO (see http://meta.stackexchange.com/users/178809/stevvve, http://meta.stackexchange.com/users/202998/jeremy-tunnell). This makes it confusing, especially when you see official-sounding posts like this one.

Now, giving diamonds to all employees on meta may not be the best solution to this. I don't think all employees want their precious inboxes spammed with all the suspensions that are doled out on meta, and other mod stuff. They won't really need the diamond powers either (though it wouldn't hurt).

So, I propose this:

Similar to how moderators have "Moderator" clearly on their profile

enter image description here

display "employee" on an employee's profile, along with the diamond if they have one. At least on meta.

enter image description here

It would imho be even better to display it on their usercards in some form, but that has already been shot down.

It would be even even better if non-MSO mods had greyed out diamonds, similar to those on the Area51 flair, but that's just me wanting more shiny stuff ;-)

share|improve this question
4  
I've voted this up, but it still requires me to visit the profile page to see this information. It should be visible on the post itself. –  ChrisF Jan 2 '13 at 17:13
    
@ChrisF: Yeah, but that's been declined :( –  Manishearth Jan 2 '13 at 17:15
6  
You should really disable the punch script when taking screen shots for feature requests :P –  Tim Post Jan 2 '13 at 17:19
4  
@TimPost: Nah, too annoying. I either have to go and disable it and refresh, or remove it via the dev tools. Plus, it's fun watching people go O_0 on this. A lot of them initially think that it's a mod-only power! :D –  Manishearth Jan 2 '13 at 17:24
    
Ah, I stand corrected, Mea Culpa! For some reason I thought you didn't have the Cat on the Hat yet.. –  Martijn Pieters Jan 2 '13 at 17:26
    
@MartijnPieters: I was wearing it for like, all of yesterday :P Also, are you stalking me ;-) –  Manishearth Jan 2 '13 at 17:27
    
Hey, you posted an answer on the WinterBash-appreciation question, and I read it. That's hardly stalking! :-P –  Martijn Pieters Jan 2 '13 at 17:28
    
@MartijnPieters: Ah :D –  Manishearth Jan 2 '13 at 17:29
7  
I assumed the Punch button was also a requested feature for Employee profiles –  Ben Brocka Jan 2 '13 at 18:03
1  
@BenBrocka: YES PLEASE! I'm willing to contribute for USB fists to be installed on every employee's workstation. Then we can use the Wheel of Blame with it! ;-) –  Manishearth Jan 2 '13 at 18:05
1  
This question has earned the 2000th "Good Question" badge on meta –  Manishearth Jan 2 '13 at 20:50
1  
I didn't even know who these guys were before this post. –  casperOne Jan 3 '13 at 2:15
2  
This is not a dupe. The old post talks of all sites (and was declined for that reason). This only talks of MSO/metas. –  Manishearth Jan 3 '13 at 22:24
    
But Jeremy is no longer an employee! –  Shadow Wizard Jul 1 at 19:58

2 Answers 2

up vote 6 down vote accepted

I've this, not because I think it's a bad idea, but because it turns out to be trickier than anticipated. Conceptually, the code would be something like1:

if user_type = employee
   print 'Employee'
else if user_type = moderator
   print 'Moderator'
...

But we have a lot of employees who never do any moderator-y type things. We'd like the sales team to use the sites exactly as regular users and not draw any special attention to them. So a slightly more complicated rule would be:

if user_type = moderator
   if user_type = employee
      print 'Employee'
   else
      print 'Moderator'
...

However, it turns out that didn't catch an important edge case. To solve that problem we started to think of how to subdivide employees into manual lists and it just stopped being a trivial change.


Instead, we are going to make sure our "about me" sections have this important information front and center2:

enter image description here

Besides not requiring complicated rules, this scheme allows us to more precisely explain our roles. Since it tends to be most confusing with new hires, editing the profile will be part of our onboarding process.3


1. My code would be more like s/^Moderator$/Employee/ if ($user{employee}); print.

2. I spent considerable time figuring out how Grace managed to get different text in the User Card than in the Profile. Answer: <!-- summary: ... -->

3. Presumably right after learning the secret handshake.

share|improve this answer
5  
This seems fine. It would be nice if employees had the extended user card on hover even without the 1000 rep requirement users normally have. –  3ventic Apr 17 at 22:09

I'd like this. I don't think it should be restricted to Meta, since that would actually make things more complicated. We already have data on employees that identifies them as such, so reading that on all sites would be a lot simpler than just employing it only on Meta Stack Overflow.

I wouldn't call the idea of putting it on the user-card on posts as completely shot down, though. I think just having the word "Employee", beneath either the name or the reputation and badges, that'd probably be the most direct and easiest implementation. We definitely have the space for it, it'd be no more obtrusive than the whole Accept Rate currently is.

Could maybe restrict this latter portion to meta-sites only, since employee status is generally unimportant in main-site Q&A, but I think that there's really no harm in still keeping the title on the profile. We should have it in our About Me section anyway.

share|improve this answer
1  
So, something like this? i.stack.imgur.com/jk9Bu.png –  Aarthi Jan 2 '13 at 17:19
    
@Aarthi Yes, something like that. –  Grace Note Jan 2 '13 at 17:21
    
@Aarthi it would be better than suggestion in question –  NullPoiиteя Jan 2 '13 at 17:34
6  
The way I see it, Accept Rate matters even less on Meta than on real sites, so how about just replacing Accept Rate with an indicator for this (and blank space for us regular users)? –  Jim Jan 2 '13 at 17:34
    
@Jim: agrees. On meta, accepting answers makes no sense in most cases, really. –  Manishearth Jan 2 '13 at 17:47
    
Why does an employee even need rep/badges on their card? As an employee your rep/badges simply don't matter to the rest of the community, the only thing that needs to be displayed is the fact you are an employee, that in itself should mean that whatever you write on Meta is gospel. –  slugster Jan 3 '13 at 0:44
    
@slugster: Arguably, rep/badges don't matter that much for displaying purposes for anyone (except possibly really new users who may need guidance) . When you vote a post, you should vote for the post, not the user (with the exception of employee posts on meta of course). So why show rep/badges on any usercard? The only reason is that it's just something to show off, and helps in the gamification of the SE system. –  Manishearth Jan 3 '13 at 9:19
    
Or employees could get an empty diamond: ♢ –  WendiKidd Aug 31 '13 at 3:31

You must log in to answer this question.

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