Timeline for Lower the weight of grammar and punctuation in the low-quality filter?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 2, 2015 at 17:41 | history | edited | Fish Below the Ice |
not strictly about Stack Overflow
|
|
| Apr 24, 2014 at 13:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| May 3, 2013 at 17:45 | vote | accept | Rachel | ||
| May 3, 2013 at 17:44 | answer | added | djechlin | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 3, 2013 at 17:39 | answer | added | Chris Bier | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 3, 2013 at 17:33 | answer | added | Shog9Mod | timeline score: 24 | |
| May 3, 2013 at 17:23 | comment | added | user164207 | Oh, how I wish I could downvote this more than once. | |
| May 3, 2013 at 17:21 | comment | added | Bart | I would not take the decision based on an increase Meta activity for such blocks. (Do we actually see that much of an increase anyway?). If there are figures suggesting that users try, are blocked and never seen again, then there might be a point to this. If most of them try, adjust and then post their question, perhaps not so much. | |
| May 3, 2013 at 17:09 | comment | added | djechlin | Can these filters be staged by throwing them in the "low quality" review queue, and factors that perform well can make it into production? Sounds like a good use for a genetic algorithm and I think there's demand for more stuff in the low quality queue. | |
| May 3, 2013 at 17:05 | comment | added | BoltClock's a Unicorn Mod | What I feel is wrong with the quality filter is that it's blocking posts based on criteria that is extremely trivial, such as failure to capitalize the pronoun "I", while allowing egregious language and formatting catastrophes - the kind of stuff that we'd be happy to not have to deal with entirely. That said, a post can be reduced to a mess simply by accumulation of multiple trivial issues as well, but the quality filter seems too strict and too permissive with the wrong things. | |
| May 3, 2013 at 16:58 | comment | added | djechlin | This is snarky but completely germane - was the filter designed by computer scientists tweaking some variables until we get it "about right", or an actual statistician preferably with some understanding of AI or NLP? Because that would help. | |
| May 3, 2013 at 16:57 | comment | added | yannis | "Since "proper" written english on the internet is overrated and underused" - Isn't that reason enough to not lower the weight of grammar and punctuation? "this appears to only be leading to more work from the same users that the low-quality filter is in place to help" - How's this a bad thing? That's exactly what the filter is supposed to do. | |
| May 3, 2013 at 16:48 | history | asked | Rachel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |