Timeline for Deleted posts should not influence reputation
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
60 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:59 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Mar 9, 2012 at 11:55 | comment | added | sth | The problem is that the quick answer that gets voted up might easily be "You're doing <x>, that's invoking undefined behavior". That's not very helpful to someone not used to the exact definition of "undefined behavior", but everybody capable of writing a better answer just wasn't in the mood to explain that issue in detail yet again. If all the answers to the issue were on a single question and not spread out over lots of duplicates, this wouldn't be an issue since the best overall answer would get voted to the top. | |
| Mar 8, 2012 at 5:48 | comment | added | Benjol | @Pekka, can't help feeling that this whole discussion comes back to whether you consider that 'your' posts belong to you or to the internet. Maybe that is the true nature of the supposed 'meta police'/SO-only divide... | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 12:19 | comment | added | Pekka | (cont'd) Of course, in the real world, just giving a quick answer is often exactly what the OP needs, and it's fine when that happens. It's not like I hate that, I do it myself often enough. But I think at its core, the system should be skewed towards building an archive of great, canonical answers, and discourage everything that goes against that. (You're right though, the current way dupes are handled right now doesn't include much deletion. My argument is aimed rather at future purges. As said above to Grace, it's not the strongest argument that can be made against the change) | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 12:15 | comment | added | Pekka | @jalf I see where you're coming from and I appreciate the spirit, but I disagree nevertheless. Say a Googler is looking for a solution to a problem. He finds a SO dupe that has a mediocre or bad answer. He ends up using the answer, and never learns there are better ones. He'd be much better served if the question had been closed as a dupe, and would be pointing to an older, canonical question with many views, where answers have been peer-reviewed, critiqued and changed for a long time already. That is my vision of the site - hence my general aversion to duplication. (cont.) | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 12:07 | comment | added | jalf | In any case, I think these rep changes are pretty insignificant, and to me, the bottom line is that I don't want a system where answering questions is frowned upon, ever. Answering a duplicate question is a whole lot better than leaving it unanswered. | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 12:04 | comment | added | jalf | I never said it was black and white. I just don't think this effect is as great as you think. Especially because this is how rep has always been experienced. It's nothing new: until a few days ago, the rep number you saw included rep for deleted questions (and every once in a blue moon a recalc would take place and remove it). So we are used to our rep going up when we answer a duplicate, and it not going down when a duplicate we answered gets removed. | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 11:52 | comment | added | Pekka | @jalf I disagree, and I don't think it's as black and white as you claim. Rep gain encourages certain behaviour. If answering duplicates is encouraged by rep gain, more people will answer duplicates. If people know that answering duplicates doesn't necessarily result in rep gain, more people will think twice before answering, and start looking up duplicates instead. Even those of us who have no intention of gaming the system. It's just human, and it's a consequence how this reward system works. | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 11:46 | comment | added | jalf | @Pekka'sReputationBordello: precisely my point: if we answer duplicates without thinking about it, then allowing you to keep the rep won't cause more duplication. It'll only have that effect if people are consciously and intentionally gaming the system and deciding "this is a duplicate, and I ought to close it, but I can get more rep for answering it and hoping it stays open for long enough to clear the bar". I don't think that is going to be a real problem, and so I see no justification for the claim that allowing people to keep the rep will make the site "terrible" | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 11:44 | comment | added | Pekka | @jalf whether you think this is terrible or not may depend a bit on what tags you're active in. I think your tags generally have a more educated user base than mine (HTML, PHP, CSS, JS)... When answering dupes, it's not that much about conscious intention than about what the system encourages. Even I have happened to answer questions that, with some thinking, I knew were duplicates because I closevoted one like it the day before... simply because the natural impulse when you see a question, is to answer it. But that impulse becomes destructive when there's too much duplication... | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 11:37 | comment | added | jalf | That still doesn't explain the "terrible". Like you say, we already have a lot of duplication, and some duplication is downright essential. So given your vision of the site, more duplicates might be suboptimal, but terrible is a pretty strong word. Apart from that, I'm far from convinced that people will intentionally game the system like this, and intentionally refrain from closing duplicates just so they can score a few more rep. | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 11:34 | comment | added | Pekka | @jalf it is "terrible" if people answer basic questions that have 5,000+ exact duplicates on the site already. Some duplication is fine, but I, for one, don't want SO to turn into some kind of mechanical turk for people who are too lazy to look in the manual. We already have way too much of that. | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 11:30 | comment | added | jalf | How exactly is it "terrible" if people answer duplicates? | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 10:38 | comment | added | Pekka | (Still, I do agree doing this does feel like bending a set of perfectly good rules to prevent hurt feelings about rep, and that is setting a terrible precedent for the future. I'm a bit conflicted here as I can see both sides. Meta voting seems to be in favour of taking the rep away though) | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 10:37 | comment | added | Pekka | @Benjol I agree, but the way things are currently done, deletions are a bit of a slap in the face and maybe some friendly gesture is needed. For a normal SO user with a couple thousand points, not only is content they wrote in good faith years ago suddenly removed without warning (at least not with a warning that you, not being active on Meta, saw), but also they are taken away points for a contribution that back then was appreciated by the community. If not removing the points can help make that hurt less, I'm not totally opposed to it. | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 10:33 | comment | added | Benjol | I totally oppose the social argument. That implies that all the people complaining about question deletion only really cared about their rep. Why should SO care about them if that's the case? | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 5:09 | comment | added | BoltClock's a Unicorn Mod | "rep is meaningless" Especially when you run a freakin' bordello... oh wait. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 20:08 | history | edited | Pekka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 335 characters in body
|
| Mar 6, 2012 at 18:26 | comment | added | Pekka | @JohnMcG I didn't build the system. And yes, rep is meaningless when 50k+ users complain about the loss of a couple hundred points. IMO. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 18:25 | comment | added | JohnMcG | "Rep is meaningless" Oh, so that's why it appears next to every question and answer I post, is at the top of my screen, is included on my Careers profile, and my profile includes a tab with everything that impacts it? Because it's meaningless. Right. You can't have it both ways -- you can't build an intricate and visible system on reputation points, and then lecture people who disagree with it that it's meaningless. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 17:44 | comment | added | Anthony Pegram | @Gilles, it's a compromise I do not actually advocate, but one I would begrudgingly put forth only to placate those who do not like losing points immediately. Personally, I have long since favored immediate reduction, because unearned rep makes me feel dirty. Feel free to steal the idea and expand upon it if you like it. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 17:28 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @AnthonyPegram I quite like your idea of blocking gains to compensate for the loss, mostly because it would abvoid the privilege yo-yo when your reputation just passes a threshold. Would you mind posting it as an answer? | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 16:49 | comment | added | Adam Rackis | @Anthony - it sounds like you'd be just as good a community relations person as me :) | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 16:44 | comment | added | Anthony Pegram | @Adam, my main point is I'm not sure I agree with any "reduces resistance to deletion" argument. Deletion is a decision the community is making on the majority of this content. Hopefully, nobody is considering that some other random Joe will lose a few points because of this. If someone who does lose a few points comes and complains about it, then I would simply direct them to go argue with that brick wall over there. (Off topic: is SE hiring for community relations? I'm totally your huckleberry.) | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 16:42 | comment | added | Adam Rackis | @Anthony - that seems like just a variation on the same theme, doesn't it? Pekka - awwwwwww. Did someone downvote that?!?!?!? | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 16:39 | comment | added | Anthony Pegram | @Adam, my "compromise" would be to instead not automatically deduct from the reputation, but not add any either until you are back in sync. "Have content deleted and lose 200 reputation? Fine, keep it. Your next 20 upvotes will net you nothing. Have a nice day. Feel free to perform a manual recalculation to get in line right now." | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 16:36 | comment | added | Pekka | Who could downvote this? | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 16:33 | comment | added | Pekka | @Adam I agree that that social argument is a pretty strong one. I still don't like changing the way the system works from transparent to a complicated formula just to appease some people over a couple repz, but maybe the current situation (what with people seriously pissed off) calls for it after all. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 16:29 | comment | added | Adam Rackis | @Pekka - I missed that comment, but wow, that is a devastating argument in favor of keeping the rep. "Here, keep your meaningless reps, we're just going to "delete" the question and move on" -- delete in quotes since it looks like your proposal to show these deleted posts to everyone is on its way | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 16:26 | comment | added | Pekka | @Adam you mean, how could one downvote those puppy eyes? That's good to know. I'll further optimize my next profile picture accordingly. :) Seriously though, do downvote away, it's some kind of a poll after all. Although I remain firm in my view, some of the arguments here have tempted me to rethink things - especially gnat's "it'll make cleaning up the site easier" | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 16:24 | comment | added | Adam Rackis | Damn it Pekka, I disagree, but I can't bring myself to downvote you... | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 15:11 | history | edited | Pekka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 94 characters in body
|
| Mar 6, 2012 at 14:59 | comment | added | gnat | that doesn't feel like a moral high ground to me, sorry. Look, "actual contributions" = "ones that fit current rules", what's moral about this? Please don't forget I like current rules and I want SO cleanup based on these - I just find them to be a shaky foundation for moral assertions. As for neighbors you got it right I meant Austrians (and Australians, too! :) | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 14:36 | comment | added | Pekka | @gnat yeah, I do acknowledge that deletionism and making rep disappear feels a bit like Stalin having executed former comrades removed from historical photographs. But all in all, I think it's the much cleaner and more transparent way. Rep stays connected to actual contributions; what gets removed, gets removed, period. (can you clarify which neighbours you are referring to though? I'm scratching my head. The Austrians? :) | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 14:30 | comment | added | gnat | Pekka I'd buy that if I feel that ground is high indeed. But to me, it isn't quite there. First thing that comes to mind is it's a bit myopic to judge 3-years old contribution only based on current understanding. Think of your "southern neighbors" blowing up thousands beautiful temples which didn't fit the party line back then | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 14:17 | comment | added | Pekka | @gnat you're right with your first point, but at what price? You appease the whining about rep, but you lose the moral high ground in future discussions. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 14:14 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' |
@GraceNote Give us /review/closed showing posts closed for more than 48 hours, with the possibility to filter by close reason. And perhaps more delete votes per days.
|
|
| Mar 6, 2012 at 14:10 | comment | added | Pekka | @Grace yeah, there is a huge issue with the handling of duplicates. No doubt. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 14:10 | comment | added | gnat | -1 refunding rep lowers resistance to deletion => makes cleaning up SO easier. As for "fairness", both rep refunding and removal feel slippery to me => no ground to make a preference. Full disclosure: the only rep I got refunded so far seem to be 30 points (<1%) and I do not expect this to change much in the future | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 14:07 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | All of that honestly speaks more to me that people are too lax on handling the duplicates and performing the necessary deletions. People are swift to point out these things for closure - why is it going to take two months of time before they get deleted? Given the sheer volume you're asserting, the lot of these fade away in obscurity so no one notices they're sitting around after 60 full days, so again, they're still keeping the reputation without needing the preservation element. The lack of people deleting these things seems far more encouraging to me. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:53 | history | edited | Pekka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 115 characters in body
|
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:53 | comment | added | Pekka | @Grace ahh, I misunderstood that, I'll fix it right away. Thanks. On second thought, I also agree this aspect is not the strongest argument against the change ... still, I maintain that knowing that if I manage to reach 3 upvotes, the rep from my answer will be preserved for all eternity even though I very well know the question will probably be destroyed, is potentially harmful, it doesn't encourage the right actions | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:51 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | Also, the +3 requirement is for the post itself, not necessarily the question. Any incentive to upvote a question for purposes of garnering upvotes for your answers is unchanged by this policy. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:50 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | They're already getting reputation, even without 3+ upvotes, if they're sitting there in 5000+ count and no one is deleting them. That's the thing - most of the problems with duplicates gaining unnecessary upvotes is already still prevalent with the lax nature of handling them already. Amongst other things one could pick apart the new policy with, I don't really think dupes is a particularly strong point. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:47 | comment | added | Pekka | ... that said, I have no scientific data here. It could be that not as many dupes with 3+ upvotes exist as I think. Still, I oppose the policy change. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:45 | history | edited | Pekka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 100 characters in body
|
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:43 | comment | added | Pekka | @Grace the thing is that there is a class of nasty, egregious super-dupes (see my comment to Will) and can I imagine a purge (or a way to battle them more efficiently) coming eventually. If you start granting answers to those reputation, you'll never educate your user base into dupe-closing. Heck, it's even an incentive for the answerer to upvote the question! | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:41 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @GraceNote Duplicate answers, and people answering very easy questions that have been asked so many times that all formulations are already covered. SO especially is so understaffed when it comes to deletion that a lot of them stay around for a long time (in fact, will keep around until we have better tools). | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:41 | comment | added | Pekka | @Won't I do, to a point. But should answers to a question that has 5,000+ dupes that pop up in the "related" column really be rewarded with reputation? That such questions get 3 upvotes doesn't happen every day, but it isn't unheard of. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:38 | comment | added | user1228 | You should stop worrying and love dupes. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:38 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | I don't think it does much to duplicates, actually. Most duplicates don't get deleted in order to retain the whole "higher searchability" thing, and those that do get deleted, I'm willing to garner tend to get deleted within the 60 days. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:35 | history | edited | Pekka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:27 | comment | added | Dennis | it feels like it was designed to assuage some users' whining about lost rep rather than establish a guideline for future high-quality contributions Exactly! | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:26 | comment | added | Anthony Pegram | I agree. If I have deleted content of my own accord or it has been deleted by the normal process, it is not helpful by definition and therefore should earn no reputation for me. And why should the new rule only apply to those with upvotes? You could make a better argument that highly downvoted content reputation should remain, lest people think those contributors are actually trustworthy (note: not proposing this) (I regained 130 rep on Programmers and 178 on SO, so I have "benefited" slightly from this new policy). | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:26 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | Good point about the dupes, I hadn't even tought of that nasty consequence. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:26 | history | edited | Pekka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:25 | comment | added | Pekka | Full disclosure: I think I have lost a significant number of points from deletions, although probably not as many as others. But the bottom line is: rep is meaningless. Especially when you have 10k+ or 50k+ or 100k+ of it. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:19 | history | edited | Pekka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 298 characters in body
|
| Mar 6, 2012 at 13:11 | history | answered | Pekka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
