4 replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link

I'd like to add that I appreciate how Jeff, as part of a great team, has taken a sometimes difficult road to accomplish the task of creating a unique and high-quality Q/A network.

The default of Conventional Wisdom on Q/A sites is to let everything in. It's so ingrained in people, that many people violently oppose the very idea of narrowing things down for something so idealistic as "quality". I see the exact same thing on many levels in my work as a director for a business networking organization;

Isn't it better to err on the side of letting something in that isn't "harmful", because maybe someone will be helped!

There are thousands of places where that opinion reigns. The fact that this isn't one of them is the reason Stack Exchange is the first and only place I ever think of coming to find answers.

Many people have pejorative descriptions they attach to Jeff because of his care in protecting that, and many other closely-related principles. Among his other duties, of which I am not all that aware since I'm really only relatively recently active here on Meta, he has been the face and voice of these decisions.

I can imagine the stress of such a position. I deeply appreciate it.

New stuff comes. Sometimes we love it, sometime we hate it. But we always know that some really smart people who really care expended some real effort thinking about them.

So, thank you so much for that, Jeff!


Some nostalgic reading to show my answer-appreciation:

http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/11959/152134Why is Jeff Atwood's reputation so high on meta?

http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/47439/152134Does Jeff Atwood sleep?

http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/121498/152134Now that Jeff Atwood is moving on, who will be "in charge"?

I'd like to add that I appreciate how Jeff, as part of a great team, has taken a sometimes difficult road to accomplish the task of creating a unique and high-quality Q/A network.

The default of Conventional Wisdom on Q/A sites is to let everything in. It's so ingrained in people, that many people violently oppose the very idea of narrowing things down for something so idealistic as "quality". I see the exact same thing on many levels in my work as a director for a business networking organization;

Isn't it better to err on the side of letting something in that isn't "harmful", because maybe someone will be helped!

There are thousands of places where that opinion reigns. The fact that this isn't one of them is the reason Stack Exchange is the first and only place I ever think of coming to find answers.

Many people have pejorative descriptions they attach to Jeff because of his care in protecting that, and many other closely-related principles. Among his other duties, of which I am not all that aware since I'm really only relatively recently active here on Meta, he has been the face and voice of these decisions.

I can imagine the stress of such a position. I deeply appreciate it.

New stuff comes. Sometimes we love it, sometime we hate it. But we always know that some really smart people who really care expended some real effort thinking about them.

So, thank you so much for that, Jeff!


Some nostalgic reading to show my answer-appreciation:

http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/11959/152134

http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/47439/152134

http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/121498/152134

I'd like to add that I appreciate how Jeff, as part of a great team, has taken a sometimes difficult road to accomplish the task of creating a unique and high-quality Q/A network.

The default of Conventional Wisdom on Q/A sites is to let everything in. It's so ingrained in people, that many people violently oppose the very idea of narrowing things down for something so idealistic as "quality". I see the exact same thing on many levels in my work as a director for a business networking organization;

Isn't it better to err on the side of letting something in that isn't "harmful", because maybe someone will be helped!

There are thousands of places where that opinion reigns. The fact that this isn't one of them is the reason Stack Exchange is the first and only place I ever think of coming to find answers.

Many people have pejorative descriptions they attach to Jeff because of his care in protecting that, and many other closely-related principles. Among his other duties, of which I am not all that aware since I'm really only relatively recently active here on Meta, he has been the face and voice of these decisions.

I can imagine the stress of such a position. I deeply appreciate it.

New stuff comes. Sometimes we love it, sometime we hate it. But we always know that some really smart people who really care expended some real effort thinking about them.

So, thank you so much for that, Jeff!


Some nostalgic reading to show my answer-appreciation:

Why is Jeff Atwood's reputation so high on meta?

Does Jeff Atwood sleep?

Now that Jeff Atwood is moving on, who will be "in charge"?

3 Migration of MSO links to MSE links
source | link

I'd like to add that I appreciate how Jeff, as part of a great team, has taken a sometimes difficult road to accomplish the task of creating a unique and high-quality Q/A network.

The default of Conventional Wisdom on Q/A sites is to let everything in. It's so ingrained in people, that many people violently oppose the very idea of narrowing things down for something so idealistic as "quality". I see the exact same thing on many levels in my work as a director for a business networking organization;

Isn't it better to err on the side of letting something in that isn't "harmful", because maybe someone will be helped!

There are thousands of places where that opinion reigns. The fact that this isn't one of them is the reason Stack Exchange is the first and only place I ever think of coming to find answers.

Many people have pejorative descriptions they attach to Jeff because of his care in protecting that, and many other closely-related principles. Among his other duties, of which I am not all that aware since I'm really only relatively recently active here on Meta, he has been the face and voice of these decisions.

I can imagine the stress of such a position. I deeply appreciate it.

New stuff comes. Sometimes we love it, sometime we hate it. But we always know that some really smart people who really care expended some real effort thinking about them.

So, thank you so much for that, Jeff!


Some nostalgic reading to show my answer-appreciation:

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/11959/152134http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/11959/152134

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/47439/152134http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/47439/152134

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/121498/152134http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/121498/152134

I'd like to add that I appreciate how Jeff, as part of a great team, has taken a sometimes difficult road to accomplish the task of creating a unique and high-quality Q/A network.

The default of Conventional Wisdom on Q/A sites is to let everything in. It's so ingrained in people, that many people violently oppose the very idea of narrowing things down for something so idealistic as "quality". I see the exact same thing on many levels in my work as a director for a business networking organization;

Isn't it better to err on the side of letting something in that isn't "harmful", because maybe someone will be helped!

There are thousands of places where that opinion reigns. The fact that this isn't one of them is the reason Stack Exchange is the first and only place I ever think of coming to find answers.

Many people have pejorative descriptions they attach to Jeff because of his care in protecting that, and many other closely-related principles. Among his other duties, of which I am not all that aware since I'm really only relatively recently active here on Meta, he has been the face and voice of these decisions.

I can imagine the stress of such a position. I deeply appreciate it.

New stuff comes. Sometimes we love it, sometime we hate it. But we always know that some really smart people who really care expended some real effort thinking about them.

So, thank you so much for that, Jeff!


Some nostalgic reading to show my answer-appreciation:

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/11959/152134

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/47439/152134

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/121498/152134

I'd like to add that I appreciate how Jeff, as part of a great team, has taken a sometimes difficult road to accomplish the task of creating a unique and high-quality Q/A network.

The default of Conventional Wisdom on Q/A sites is to let everything in. It's so ingrained in people, that many people violently oppose the very idea of narrowing things down for something so idealistic as "quality". I see the exact same thing on many levels in my work as a director for a business networking organization;

Isn't it better to err on the side of letting something in that isn't "harmful", because maybe someone will be helped!

There are thousands of places where that opinion reigns. The fact that this isn't one of them is the reason Stack Exchange is the first and only place I ever think of coming to find answers.

Many people have pejorative descriptions they attach to Jeff because of his care in protecting that, and many other closely-related principles. Among his other duties, of which I am not all that aware since I'm really only relatively recently active here on Meta, he has been the face and voice of these decisions.

I can imagine the stress of such a position. I deeply appreciate it.

New stuff comes. Sometimes we love it, sometime we hate it. But we always know that some really smart people who really care expended some real effort thinking about them.

So, thank you so much for that, Jeff!


Some nostalgic reading to show my answer-appreciation:

http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/11959/152134

http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/47439/152134

http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/121498/152134

2 added 1370 characters in body
source | link

I've thought longI'd like to add that I appreciate how Jeff, as part of a great team, has taken a sometimes difficult road to accomplish the task of creating a unique and hard about ithigh-quality Q/A network.

The default of Conventional Wisdom on Q/A sites is to let everything in. It's so ingrained in people, that many people violently oppose the very idea of narrowing things down for something so idealistic as "quality". I see the exact same thing on many levels in my work as a director for a business networking organization;

Isn't it better to err on the side of letting something in that isn't "harmful", because maybe someone will be helped!

There are thousands of places where that opinion reigns. The fact that this isn't one of them is the reason Stack Exchange is the first and only place I must sayever think of coming to find answers.

Many people have pejorative descriptions they attach to Jeff because of his care in protecting that, and many other closely-related principles. Among his other duties, of which I agree with your proposalam not all that aware since I'm really only relatively recently active here on Meta, he has been the face and voice of these decisions.

I can imagine the stress of such a position. I deeply appreciate it.

New stuff comes. Sometimes we love it, sometime we hate it. But we always know that some really smart people who really care expended some real effort thinking about them.

So, thank you so much for that, Jeff!

 

Some nostalgic reading to show my answer-appreciation:

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/11959/152134

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/47439/152134

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/121498/152134

I've thought long and hard about it, and I must say I agree with your proposal!

Some nostalgic reading to show my answer-appreciation:

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/11959/152134

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/47439/152134

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/121498/152134

I'd like to add that I appreciate how Jeff, as part of a great team, has taken a sometimes difficult road to accomplish the task of creating a unique and high-quality Q/A network.

The default of Conventional Wisdom on Q/A sites is to let everything in. It's so ingrained in people, that many people violently oppose the very idea of narrowing things down for something so idealistic as "quality". I see the exact same thing on many levels in my work as a director for a business networking organization;

Isn't it better to err on the side of letting something in that isn't "harmful", because maybe someone will be helped!

There are thousands of places where that opinion reigns. The fact that this isn't one of them is the reason Stack Exchange is the first and only place I ever think of coming to find answers.

Many people have pejorative descriptions they attach to Jeff because of his care in protecting that, and many other closely-related principles. Among his other duties, of which I am not all that aware since I'm really only relatively recently active here on Meta, he has been the face and voice of these decisions.

I can imagine the stress of such a position. I deeply appreciate it.

New stuff comes. Sometimes we love it, sometime we hate it. But we always know that some really smart people who really care expended some real effort thinking about them.

So, thank you so much for that, Jeff!

 

Some nostalgic reading to show my answer-appreciation:

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/11959/152134

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/47439/152134

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/121498/152134

    Mod Removes Wiki by Tim Post
1
source | link