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.

Update

This just happened. I waltzed into the PHP room, and sure enough:

Someone being stupid.

If this isn't evidence that we need a room star creation reputation minimum, I don't know what is.

Alternative

While I believe functionality in this proposal would be optimal, it is perfectly understandable that such an implementation may be too large for reasonable expectations.

Alternatively, as has been discussed elsewhere and in the comments (and additional notes) below, a reputation minimum for room star creation may be satisfactory to prevent clutter.

This could be broken into two functions:

  • create a room star
  • increment an existing room star

Since the fundamental issue is with room star creation, a reputation minimum should only be required for that; perhaps something on the order of 500. However, a lower minimum could be required to increment existing room stars; perhaps something on the order of 100.

Proposal

Continuing with the frustration from this question, I'm wondering if a distinction between personal stars and room stars would help manage the way we mark content as "interesting".

While there aren't any specific guidelines on star etiquette (please correct and link accordingly if I'm wrong), the tendency of regulars in various rooms is to star content that has some sort of permanence and relevance to the rest of the room.

Occasionally, however, an unfamiliar face will wander in and start starring things left and right. The stars are relevant only in the context of their conversation (typically regarding a problem about which they've visited the room for guidance) and only to themselves.

enter image description here

This would permit people to track their bookmark content on-site, without it "polluting" the room stars.

As stars are inherently public, personal stars could be visible publicly on a given users' chat.stackoverflow.com profile.

enter image description here

Additional Notes

  • A minimum reputation requirement (something reasonable, 200? 500?) could be required to create room stars, whereas personal stars can be created by anyone able to chat.
  • For this to be effective, the default behavior of starring a message would need to be "personal", unless both options were provided beside one-another.
share|improve this question
    
yeah, somewhat like 'pin message as relevant to room' (which will show on the right side pinned area of the chat) vs 'like this message personally' (those that wont..) –  reikyoushin Nov 13 '13 at 17:55
    
@random I'd like to appeal the duplication call. While the intent of this proposal is similar to the linked one, it's a different approach/implementation. I'd appreciate some feedback. –  Dan Lugg Nov 14 '13 at 13:05
    
Well, you ain't getting any. –  BiVOC Nov 14 '13 at 15:00
3  
Totally agree, the amount of #@#! that is usually in the Javascript sidebar is unbelievable –  Pinocchio Nov 15 '13 at 0:36
4  
I like the need for a minimum rep requirement to room star. –  Florian Margaine Nov 15 '13 at 10:15
    
@FlorianMargaine Perhaps that's all that is necessary. If we can't have something more robust, I'd settle for that. –  Dan Lugg Nov 15 '13 at 13:27
    
Most of my time in chat is in English Language & Usage, The Upper Room (Christianity), and The Library (Biblical Hermeneutics). I don't see these problems there. –  TRiG is Timothy Richard Green Nov 19 '13 at 13:00
    
@TRiGisTimothyRichardGreen Well, you're certainly lucky. I can't speak to the reason you don't witness these issues; perhaps those rooms attract a more respectful group, people who take time to understand the ecosystem before abusing it. All I know is that screenshot I added to the Q is a good reason why other rooms may need this. (it certainly is an extreme example, I haven't seen it so bad before, but it does get bad at times) –  Dan Lugg Nov 19 '13 at 14:15
    
We probably do have a higher ratio of regulars to visitors in those rooms, yes, @DanLugg. Also, EL&U is never on topic anyway, and the sidebar reflects the room in that. –  TRiG is Timothy Richard Green Nov 19 '13 at 14:26
add comment

1 Answer

I like the "star as interesting to me"... but were that implemented, the next step would be creating bookmarks related to someone and not a room as you can end up with non-removable (except by creator) irrelevant conversations associated with the room...

Anyway, it's a tricky one due to any standard on what starring should be used for. Short of a minimum reputation requirement which probably should be inline with the requirement to upvote questions/answers on the main site instead of another specific chat limit - perhaps it should be possible to disallow non-room owners starring new posts. This would enable RO's to star posts appropriate for the room and members can still star these posts if they like them - this doesn't then reduce so much the chance of someone getting the talkative badge. It also means that RO's don't have to spend time cancelling stars on noise.

share|improve this answer
    
It certainly is tricky; for instance, limiting the ability to room owners wouldn't be optimal for the PHP room. The room regulars, not all of whom are room owners, are very knowledgeable and often star very useful content. At worst, they/we star cat gifs. I don't want to see that taken away. I'm starting to think the minimum rep approach may be the least obtrusive. –  Dan Lugg Nov 19 '13 at 14:06
    
@DanLugg umm... Another option might be an "access" privilege similar to "explicit write access" but which allows a user to star posts (it could possibly even extend to a create bookmark privilege). Could you see that working for the PHP room? The min. rep. remains by far the simplest though... –  Jon Clements Nov 19 '13 at 14:49
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

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