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.

On Meta SO, downvoting merely means "disagree." This convention carried over to per-site metas. But questions with very low scores — e.g. this question on Meta Math SE with net score of -5 — are automatically hidden from the front page. The fact that a valid discussion seems to be deleted causes confusion.

Please do not hide questions with very low scores from the front pages of metas. These questions aren't hidden on Meta SO, and shouldn't be on other metas either.

mockup of meta front page displaying a question of score -5

share|improve this question
I wasn't aware that there was any hiding of questions with - scores... –  Mark Henderson Aug 30 '10 at 0:48
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 10 down vote accepted

The threshold is higher on meta, I think it's -8 or so compared to -4 on the parent site.

Are you recommending that as the standard for all metas? I think I could support that.

edit: setting this to a global value of -8 for all metas.

share|improve this answer
I thought there's no threshold here :) But yes, I think the threshold should be relaxed. –  KennyTM Aug 30 '10 at 10:49
It might also be good to update faq (or some other relevant part of the FAQ) to make it clear to those who might not know (cough such as myself) that low-scoring answers are automatically hidden. –  Kyle Strand Apr 26 '13 at 19:52
add comment

I'd like to address concerns with this current .

The original asked not to hide questions with low scores for all the right reasons.

Please do not hide questions with very low scores from the front pages of metas.

Why was changing the threshold to -8 decided upon instead?

If you are thinking along the lines, "Really poor quality content doesn't need to be visible", please reread the feature request.

Additionally I would like to add that really poor quality content is closed as not constructive, therefore I suggest to only hide questions that are closed and heavily down voted on the front page.

share|improve this answer
+1 - Completing this request means doing what it asks or clearly explaining why the chosen route is similar enough to be considered the same. Simply "approximating" an implementation is a good start and a functional stop-gap, but it isn't a "completed" resolution, especially if the spirit of the request is not satisfied. –  cdeszaq Mar 7 '12 at 20:22
@CodyGray Thank you for the bump edit.;) It's of very high quaillity. –  Steven Jeuris Mar 7 '12 at 21:01
Wow, now I have to fix that... Sorry –  Cody Gray Mar 7 '12 at 21:04
Did you read the very next sentence (These questions aren't hidden on Meta SO, and shouldn't be on other metas either.), the answer, and the comment on the answer (I thought there's no threshold here :) But yes, I think the threshold should be relaxed.)? The superficial request was based on a false premise: the actual request was to have child metas match MSO's behavior, which they now do. –  user149432 Mar 7 '12 at 21:24
@MarkTrapp What do you propose? That we all start reinterpreting posts as we see fit? Yes I read those comments, and to me they make clear the OP did not expect having a threshold at all, but if you like I will post it as a new feature request. –  Steven Jeuris Mar 7 '12 at 21:39
@StevenJeuris I propose that when you see a feature request from over a year ago—that has status-completed and answer from SE that was accepted by the requester along with a comment acknowledging the answer solves the spirit of the request—that perhaps you ought to consider the request was addressed and you should read it as such instead of presuming both the asker and SE didn't read the request. The asker wanted Meta Math to match MSO's handling of low-scored questions, which it now does. You're asking for something separate from what this question wanted. –  user149432 Mar 7 '12 at 22:04
@MarkTrapp At this point I just want to mention my original intent was to post it as a new feature-request, but I refrained from doing so not only to make a statement in another discussion, but also as an encore in this discussion. Whether or not any of the two options is preferred I don't know, but I do know making too much of a fuzz about it isn't aiding in any way. –  Steven Jeuris Mar 7 '12 at 22:12
@MarkTrapp Here, have a kitten. ;) –  Steven Jeuris Mar 7 '12 at 22:22
@StevenJeuris You seem to have a real desire to have constructive discussions on MSO: as Cody Gray tried to point out to you in the conversation you linked they require reading—and understanding—past discussions on MSO. They also require assuming good faith and due diligence on the part of others. You don't do that by walking into a long-since-resolved post and make the claim nobody read or paid attention to what the author wanted (including the author himself), but by understanding how it was resolved and providing useful, demonstrable feedback or suggestions to build upon the resolution. –  user149432 Mar 8 '12 at 2:56
@MarkTrapp Should I have provided "useful, demonstrable feedback or suggestions to build upon the resolution" through comments instead? Or should I have posted it as a new feature-request. You didn't quite go into that suggestion, perhaps you didn't read—and understand—past discussions on MSO? –  Steven Jeuris Mar 11 '12 at 5:03
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

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