Timeline for Warn new users when they ask a question after a previous question is closed, downvoted, or deleted
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
44 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jun 12, 2021 at 15:32 | history | suggested | bobble | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed formatting
|
| Jun 12, 2021 at 14:19 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 12, 2021 at 15:32 | |||||
| Jan 18, 2021 at 11:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://chat.stackexchange.com with https://chat.stackexchange.com
|
|
| Aug 23, 2017 at 19:56 | history | edited | Nathan Tuggy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarified when the warning goes away
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:17 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| May 6, 2014 at 19:26 | vote | accept | bwDraco | ||
| May 6, 2014 at 19:16 | history | edited | Adam LearStaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| May 6, 2014 at 19:16 | answer | added | Adam LearStaffMod | timeline score: 84 | |
| Apr 24, 2014 at 13:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| May 6, 2013 at 15:24 | vote | accept | bwDraco | ||
| May 6, 2014 at 19:26 | |||||
| May 5, 2013 at 18:27 | answer | added | Ward - Trying Codidact | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 5, 2013 at 16:14 | comment | added | Bart | @DragonLordtheFiery After all the information already given to the user? 4 closed questions lead to 4 explanations and links. And then the user goes on to ask whether or not to delete the questions, indicating that the ban message link was not read either, even though the user claims he has. I'd say you're not losing a user due to inadequate guidance, but due to the user not bothering to read and understand the ample information out there. I don't have high hopes for such users with the feature you suggest either. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 15:52 | comment | added | bwDraco | @Bart: Yes, I admit that not every user can meet the quality standards, and I've conceded this in my answer to the "please assume good faith" question. However, the case of the user mentioned in this question certainly appears to be preventable if we give the user the right cues at the right time. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 15:37 | history | edited | bwDraco | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 91 characters in body
|
| May 5, 2013 at 13:43 | answer | added | djechlin | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 5, 2013 at 13:40 | comment | added | djechlin | If you want to try something radical, give them an easy, hand-selected review audit corresponding to their close reason, and 24 hour ban until they can pass it. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 9:07 | answer | added | ben is uǝq backwards | timeline score: 16 | |
| May 5, 2013 at 9:05 | comment | added | Bart | You make quite some assumptions there. What is your proof of inadequate guidance? Given that this is your third question along similar lines, I know you're assuming the best for every user, but how about reality? Could it possibly be that the user did not look at the information provided to him? And how would presenting the user with the exact same information already shown to him before help? While I will never state that the system is perfect, at some point we'll have to admit that we can't help every user. The site is not for everyone. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 7:31 | comment | added | user164207 | I'm not assuming that "every post-banned user is aware of the rules and quality standards." I simply don't care about post-banned users who can't or won't make themselves aware of--and make efforts to abide by--said standards. Stack Exchange isn't for everyone, and there are lots of other sites on the internet. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 7:30 | history | edited | bwDraco | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 64 characters in body
|
| May 5, 2013 at 7:25 | history | edited | bwDraco | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 325 characters in body; added 49 characters in body
|
| May 5, 2013 at 7:11 | comment | added | nhahtdh | @Mat: Obstacle may make people read it, but the number you gave (15 minutes), is not a practical number - people will mostly just close the tab. There is no compelling reason why they need to ask their question here, if it takes so much trouble to do so. 1 minute or less is somewhat acceptable, but quite irritating already. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 7:09 | history | edited | bwDraco | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 75 characters in body; added 18 characters in body
|
| May 5, 2013 at 7:00 | comment | added | Mat | @nhahtdh: do you see any value in implementing this without any sort of time-delay or obstacle? | |
| May 5, 2013 at 6:58 | comment | added | nhahtdh | @Mat: If you implement the stop part, people will just leave. There is no (immediate) incentive in spending 15 minutes to read the FAQs, when they have got a problem to ask. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 6:58 | history | edited | bwDraco | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 435 characters in body
|
| May 5, 2013 at 6:54 | comment | added | Mat | @nhahtdh: just to be clear: I don't support this. I think there's enough stuff already. But if this is just another insta'click-through there's no point in implementing it at all. If you want to make people "STOP! look and listen", you actually have to implement the STOP part. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 6:51 | comment | added | nhahtdh | @Mat: There is no reason they would wait/read the FAQs for 15 minutes. Whether on registration or whatever reason. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 6:51 | comment | added | Mat | @DragonLordtheFiery: I have no idea what the right delay would be, but it takes a sizeable chunk of 15s just to look for a "go away" button. If you want that to be read, 15s won't cut it. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 6:49 | answer | added | user206222 | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 5, 2013 at 6:49 | comment | added | bwDraco | It's important to note that this page is only to be displayed if the user is new but has previously had a question deleted, closed, or downvoted. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 6:48 | comment | added | Mat | @nhahtdh: that's not on registration. That's after "the system" determines a user is close to a Q ban. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 6:47 | comment | added | nhahtdh | @Mat: 15 minutes? I'm going to close the tab and go to some forum if the registration takes that long. It doesn't worth it. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 6:47 | comment | added | bwDraco | @Mat: Making it too long would discourage users from posting. A user can always choose to read the links past the delay before clicking on Continue. Maybe 30 seconds would be better? | |
| May 5, 2013 at 6:44 | comment | added | Mat | @DragonLordtheFiery: make that 15 minutes and it might be worth it. 15s isn't enough to read half the blurb you posted, let alone following any if the links, even assuming perfect English skills. Actually increasing the rate-limiting and showing that type of message when a user tries to post while rate-limited with "bad karma" might actually help a bit. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 6:41 | comment | added | Anoop Vaidya | @DragonLordtheFiery: You read, that's impressive. Not All. Even I don't read. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 6:38 | comment | added | bwDraco | @AnoopVaidya: I understand not often. I do read most EULAs if they're new or have recently changed (the check box accompanying them often say something like "I have read and agree to these terms" and checking the box without actually reading the EULA would constitute breach of contract [IANAL]). To address this issue, inserting a 15-second delay before the Continue button is enabled can encourage users to read the page. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 6:37 | comment | added | Jon Skeet | @DragonLordtheFiery: Did you try the same experiment on Stack Overflow? You can't post without an account on Stack Overflow. It would be worth considering the SO case where such a page is already shown (and we still get poor questions). In general I still like the idea, but just be aware that for SO, it's not like users haven't been told already. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 6:34 | comment | added | Anoop Vaidya | @DragonLordtheFiery: I meant for every software installation. No one reads this as bypasses it by clicking I Agree. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 6:31 | comment | added | bwDraco | The question EULA isn't always shown. This test question (soon 10k only) went through without an EULA being shown. | |
| May 5, 2013 at 6:28 | comment | added | Anoop Vaidya |
How many of you read EULA and don't click I Agree. So is the case here.
|
|
| May 5, 2013 at 6:20 | comment | added | user206222 |
Why would this be more effective than the page which is already shown to all new users, under which you must click I understand to continue? As a side note, I appreciate the efforts to help make new users better. It's just very difficult to do so beyond what we have already done; however, convince us your ideas are novel and not already covered, and I stand behind you.
|
|
| May 5, 2013 at 6:17 | history | asked | bwDraco | CC BY-SA 3.0 |