Timeline for Breaking down question blocks - let's talk about rate limits
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 18, 2016 at 6:14 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @uoɥʇʎPʎzɐɹC editing is not a sign you can ask or answer properly. For all we know, you can just edit 1000 "i" to "I" etc. | |
| Oct 18, 2016 at 0:07 | comment | added | noɥʇʎԀʎzɐɹƆ | I edited hundreds of posts with the restriction, trying to get out of the ban. I sighed and made another account. When they were merged, the ban was lifted. Evidence that people can changed. | |
| Oct 21, 2014 at 6:43 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @FizzledOut true, good point. Thanks! :) | |
| Oct 21, 2014 at 2:02 | comment | added | kettlecrab | I think that if you compare the question scores with the user's answer scores, the answer scores should be weighted downwards because, afterall, it's about asking questions, not answering them. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 18:57 | comment | added | jscs | True, @ShadowWizard; it's a big barrel to tackle. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 18:54 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @JoshCaswell with robo approvers out in the open, it's hard to tell when someone really suggests good edits so might be better not taking the risk. :/ | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 18:54 | comment | added | jscs | I should clarify, too: I agree that editing should be counted as a positive contribution. (Well, as long as it's thorough and correct &c., but that's a whole 'nother barrel.) | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 18:52 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @JoshCaswell true, blonde moment. Anyway, taking answers into account is good enough, and possibly helpful flags as well. The rest can be safely ignored, if the team decides it's not worth it. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 18:48 | comment | added | jscs | @ShadowWizard: That's editing, not reviewing. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 18:48 | comment | added | jscs | To put OGHaza's comment another way, someone who isn't cognizant of the poor fit of his own content is unlikely to be a good judge of others' content. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 18:46 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @OGHaza someone might be not so good in programming or have bad question asking skills, yet invest time in improving grammar of questions, fixing code formatting all around etc. Not much, but still it means he cares. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 17:47 | comment | added | Bill the Lizard | @OGHaza If they're terrible at reviewing, they'll get banned from that too. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 16:01 | comment | added | OGHaza | Agree with you on the whole except for reviewing being taken into account. If there is anyone I want to discourage from reviewing, it's the folk who can't even keep themselves out of the question ban. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 14:50 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | Sure, showing it would likely cause same trouble the accept rate did. But I think the current question ban algorithm is using answer score, isn't it? So it's not a new idea. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 14:48 | comment | added | user50049 | This is reaching back to the sort of 'general / global citizenship score' Jeff was talking about some time ago. It's not a bad idea to calculate something like that for this very specific purpose, just not showing it. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 14:31 | history | answered | Shadow Wizard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |