Timeline for At smaller sites, penalize hot questions having 3-4 close votes
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
54 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2018 at 22:21 | history | rollback | Shadow Wizard |
Rollback to Revision 9
|
|
| Jun 12, 2018 at 22:15 | history | edited | Jeremy |
edited tags
|
|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Apr 12, 2017 at 7:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 24, 2017 at 6:42 | comment | added | gnat | see also: The “hot” questions algorithm should use logic to avoid controversial questions | |
| S Feb 9, 2017 at 8:39 | history | bounty ended | gnat | ||
| S Feb 9, 2017 at 8:39 | history | notice removed | gnat | ||
| Feb 3, 2017 at 8:40 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
http://meta.softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/new-site-name
|
| Feb 2, 2017 at 8:17 | answer | added | Magisch | timeline score: 12 | |
| S Feb 2, 2017 at 8:03 | history | bounty started | gnat | ||
| S Feb 2, 2017 at 8:03 | history | notice added | gnat | Draw attention | |
| Nov 27, 2016 at 10:28 | comment | added | gnat | it's probably time to start paying more attention to smaller sites issues now that these have been proven worthy even to enabling display ads | |
| S Jul 15, 2015 at 16:13 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jul 15, 2015 at 16:13 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Jul 9, 2015 at 9:34 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarified per discussion in comments at http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/260328
|
| S Jul 7, 2015 at 14:26 | history | bounty started | gnat | ||
| S Jul 7, 2015 at 14:26 | history | notice added | gnat | Draw attention | |
| S May 30, 2015 at 12:13 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S May 30, 2015 at 12:13 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| S May 22, 2015 at 10:31 | history | bounty started | gnat | ||
| S May 22, 2015 at 10:31 | history | notice added | gnat | Draw attention | |
| Mar 19, 2015 at 9:45 | comment | added | gnat | @bjb568 FWIW there is a similar request at MSO: How to prevent close-able questions from being listed under “Hot Network Questions” | |
| Feb 1, 2015 at 20:54 | answer | added | gnat | timeline score: 28 | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 9:14 | comment | added | gnat | related: Avoid sharing bad questions at Facebook - 'It is very "helpful" when a question on its way to closure gets 45 likes and 2 shares (many of whom probably have association bonus to vote up what they like / share)...' | |
| S Oct 23, 2014 at 8:39 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Oct 23, 2014 at 8:39 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Oct 15, 2014 at 8:04 | comment | added | gnat | @doppelgreener correct. If the related #2 was implemented (at least in that part), there would be no need for this one. But it's status-declined wholesale and I "extracted" the part I frankly like most into this request | |
| Oct 15, 2014 at 8:00 | comment | added | doppelgreener | Does related #2 mean this is effectively implemented? 3-4 close votes drops the hotness by 60-80%, far more than the 50% drop requested. | |
| S Oct 15, 2014 at 7:25 | history | bounty started | gnat | ||
| S Oct 15, 2014 at 7:25 | history | notice added | gnat | Draw attention | |
| S Sep 3, 2014 at 13:04 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Sep 3, 2014 at 13:04 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Aug 26, 2014 at 13:44 | comment | added | gnat | @bjb568 per my observations it matters indeed (check the example with "SO-Programmers twin"). I definitely won't mind if larger sites questions are penalized that way, I only don't expect this to make much difference. Think of it, inappropriate SO question at sidebar attracts eyeballs of, say, 100-200 users with close privileges at SO - how long would you expect it to hang in there before getting closed and wiped out? | |
| Aug 26, 2014 at 13:37 | comment | added | bjb568 | Why does it matter if a site is small? Bad questions are bad questions! | |
| S Aug 26, 2014 at 12:03 | history | bounty started | gnat | ||
| S Aug 26, 2014 at 12:03 | history | notice added | gnat | Draw attention | |
| S Aug 13, 2014 at 10:18 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Aug 13, 2014 at 10:18 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Aug 9, 2014 at 16:31 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
disappointment and frustration of new users coming to sites to ask questions similar to ones advertised in the hot list...
|
| Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 | comment | added | gnat | ...regarding community growth, it is also worth reminding that hot questions are simply not intended to help in that. Their only purpose officially stated so far is to show entertaining / interesting stuff, nothing else | |
| Aug 9, 2014 at 7:35 | comment | added | gnat | @nes observations show that hot questions don't really help site community grow, see: Can we track the positive effects of a popular question? It's more like "flash in the pan". Longer term observations at Programmers show pretty similar effect: "Tons and tons of people visited the site... but very few decided to stick around..." | |
| Aug 9, 2014 at 6:20 | comment | added | nes | There is already moderation. I think community must learn and grow on it's mistakes, what here is suggested is authoritarian approach where few people knows what's best and can shape new community in diligent little SE, will certainly save purity of site, but as a result, even with growing popularity you will not see new people becoming active contributors. | |
| Aug 5, 2014 at 10:30 | comment | added | gnat | @MikePennington this would essentially mean moderators have to carry a 24x7 watch on questions that may suddenly make it into hot list, along with getting enough close votes, this is not how system is expected to work. I am also uncomfortable with the idea of moderators intervening depending not on site community feedback (flags, chat, meta) but on not particularly relevant cross-network feature (hotness formula) | |
| Aug 5, 2014 at 10:00 | comment | added | Mike Pennington | I like the idea, but the question might be asked: "Since we are talking about smaller sites, why isn't a pro-tem mod closing the question if the community already has 3-4 close votes on it?" In other words, the problem might not be so bad... assuming the pro-tem mods are reasonable judges of the question's worth | |
| S Aug 5, 2014 at 9:08 | history | bounty started | gnat | ||
| S Aug 5, 2014 at 9:08 | history | notice added | gnat | Draw attention | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 22:57 | comment | added | gnat | ...another recent example: 3 votes to close, 2 down, #19 (of 100) in the hot list with "32.619 hotness points". "...watching the 'hot network questions' leads me to think that several of the recent sites are gigantic broken windows of self-absorbed subjectivity" -- sure why would it be different when system works like that | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 22:10 | comment | added | gnat | for a recent example: question with 4 votes down and close at #7 in the hot list, gaining lemming upvotes from all around SE network, fully exploiting The Trouble With Popularity. How does it feel like for community regulars who voted down and close? | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 19:22 | comment | added | gnat | @Yannis I hate you mods for breaking my nice experiments. :) If seriously, thank you! | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 19:20 | comment | added | yannis | "while its twin at Programmers has been struggling to get 3rd vote for over 10 hours" Not anymore... ;) | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 19:12 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor typo corrected
|
| Jul 31, 2014 at 18:56 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor spelling cleanup
|
| Jul 31, 2014 at 18:50 | history | asked | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
