Timeline for Deleted posts should not influence reputation
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 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 24, 2014 at 13:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Aug 29, 2012 at 19:45 | history | edited | ЯegDwight | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 characters in body
|
| Mar 8, 2012 at 5:43 | comment | added | Benjol | @Shog9, take your time on this archive business. We would really like to participate in the discussion. One big question which isn't clear to me is if you anticipate 'new' material going into it, or if it will be fixed for all time? You could have fun.stackoverflow.com, which would have voting, but no rep. A letting-off-steam place, with a deliberate 'this is not the real thing' look. | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 20:58 | comment | added | Adam Rackis | @Jeff - well you have thicker skin than most, and can withstand sh_t storms from users better than any human I've ever seen. | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 20:56 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @adam of course, Shog is the man! As I said, no serious objections to this, other than IMHO it does make the rep system more complicated for kind of arbitrary, and a bit silly reasons. It's not something I would oppose or even strongly oppose. | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 15:41 | comment | added | Shog9 | Heh... Jeff would've probably seen this coming; he was pretty sensitive to stuff that exposed deleted posts. I know there are probably a dozen declined feature-request for deleted search and so on with "don't stir up trouble" as the underlying rationale. Let's hope the twins keep the smugness under control... @Adam | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 15:37 | comment | added | Adam Rackis | @Jeff - pretty crappy of you to leave right before the crap hit the fan :) Gotta say though, Shog did a pretty good job of cleaning it all up. | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 15:27 | comment | added | Some Helpful Commenter | @Shog9. Once the SO time machine is made I look forward to the Meta posts on why certain questions make it and others don't. | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 14:50 | comment | added | Shog9 | @Jeff: yeah, I keep thinking back to "CW as rep-denial", a tactic which appealed greatly to me but worked so poorly when it came to actually fixing those broken windows. Joel Coehoorn described it as a lottery back then, and that's exactly how people treated it. Gotta actually get rid of the stuff that isn't real Q&A, keeping it around and denying rep doesn't do anything. | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 14:42 | comment | added | Shog9 | @Benjol: everyone is duplicitous about it. Well, not everyone, but a good number of folks on both sides. That's what I meant by "reputation as a distraction" - jealousy and greed are powerful motivators, even when talking about imaginary points. We're gonna have an archive - I'm going through a ton of locked and deleted posts right now - but it's critical that in doing so we focus on the content worth preserving but no longer useful live on the site... Not reputation. | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 10:59 | comment | added | Benjol | Sorry. One more comment then I'll shut up (I feel a bit guilty 'cos I didn't see this change in time, otherwise I'd have shouted louder and sooner). I just don't see the logic of this particular 'spoonful of sugar': say you delete 'the center cannot hold', and in return you leave bobince his millions. What about me and the 1495 other people who've favorited it? We're all still pissed off, so your change has a minimal effect. If, instead, you'd fast-tracked the archives/museum/whatever idea, you'd have had one pissed-off user (bobince, losing his precccious rep), and 1496 happy bunnies. | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 10:54 | comment | added | Benjol | I still don't get it. It feels like you're saying that all those angry hoards who came complaining about deletion were in fact being duplicitous; they really prefer losing the posts and keeping their rep to losing their rep, but keeping their posts? | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 10:34 | comment | added | gnat | it also looks worth mentioning that straightforward removal approach has been "tested" for a several days (between Big Removal and Big Refund) and per Meta discussions has been found to be not quite constructive (likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion, borrowing an excellent definition from close reason description) | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 9:32 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | the elephant in the room is that a lot of these old off-topic questions should be retroactively made community wiki (and anything with 30+ answers will be by definition, or 15+ answers on prog.se and su), thus rendering a lot of this change moot. I don't have any serious objection to this policy, but it makes the rep system substantially more complicated for IMHO a trivial reason, which is not a plus. And then you still have the broken window of a user getting 200 rep for posting, say, an xkcd cartoon that happened to be on the site for 60 days. Still a public distortion. | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 6:48 | history | answered | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |