Timeline for Increase the question quality filter's strictness as users move closer to a ban
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 9, 2013 at 3:29 | answer | added | LearnIT | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 7, 2013 at 21:55 | comment | added | user102937 | This could be a good idea if the quality filter and the question ban mechanisms worked the same way, but they don't. They measure two very different metrics. | |
| May 7, 2013 at 20:17 | comment | added | Bart | @djechlin Make sure to identify that we have a problem that needs solving though. | |
| May 7, 2013 at 20:16 | comment | added | djechlin | @Bart there's truth to that. I tend to view our job as more of maintaining the the items in the feature request queue but not prioritizing it or estimating effort. But I still think we should push ourselves to identify what sticks better, and I'm claiming we're not doing a great job on this topic. I'll open a meta thread on generally how we should be approaching the new user retention problem soon enough. | |
| May 7, 2013 at 20:14 | comment | added | Bart | @djechlin Then again, votes on feature requests are hardly any indication that they will actually be implemented. As far as they are concerned I regard them as a bit of a "let's fling stuff at the wall and see what sticks". And in the background I hear the laughter of the powers that be, who amuse themselves over the stuff we come up with while they happily ignore it. ;) | |
| May 7, 2013 at 20:11 | comment | added | djechlin | @Bart we're experiencing a burst of ideas for hurdles to add here and our upvote-pattern isn't exactly being very discerning or critical for which are actually going to increase user retention or education. It's just, "that makes it harder, it might work, might not, so why not?" Why not just reject the next question attempt and say "try rewriting it" and accept the next attempt? Where's the line for hurdles we can throw before we're clearly wasting our time? The questions (incl mine recently) don't really identify the trade-offs, which makes me very suspect. | |
| May 7, 2013 at 20:08 | comment | added | Bart | @djechlin Yes, we are evil like that towards the poor struggling user. Oh how we laugh and laugh and laugh... Come on, we're trying to keep the quality up while at the same time not allowing a user to post bad content which might lead to a ban. I don't think this particular idea will work, but that particular sob-story of yours doesn't fit with this request. | |
| May 7, 2013 at 20:06 | comment | added | user206222 | @djechlin I think you're being a bit pessimistic overall. The goal here is to push users to have better posts, not make it harder to post. | |
| May 7, 2013 at 20:05 | comment | added | djechlin | People will upvote anything that makes it harder for a struggling user to post. | |
| May 7, 2013 at 19:49 | comment | added | Bart | @Servy I of course know too little about the ban filter to confirm or deny any of that. But if the filter doesn't catch the crap questions that lead the user towards a ban, I'm not so sure that making it more strict will magically perform a better job. But of course I'll take a step back and wait for Shog9 to tell me I know nothing. ;) | |
| May 7, 2013 at 19:47 | answer | added | djechlin | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 7, 2013 at 19:43 | comment | added | Servy | @Bart I think that's the point here though; for users who have a history of producing low quality content we can error on the side of filtering; assuming that it's more likely for the content to really be poor than for it to be a false positive. | |
| May 7, 2013 at 19:42 | comment | added | Bart | I'm not sure how feasible this is. I would assume that the filter is already "performance tuned" to give the most reasonable results, trying to prevent the false positives. | |
| May 7, 2013 at 19:38 | comment | added | user206222 | @Mike Raising the question quality filter's thresholds has always been somewhat of an abstract idea, since nobody but devs know how the filter internally works. We know of a couple existing checks (title, basic grammar, etc.) but that's only part of it. | |
| May 7, 2013 at 19:38 | comment | added | Mike |
define should become stricter.
|
|
| May 7, 2013 at 19:35 | history | asked | user206222 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |