Timeline for New UI encourages askers to confirm or dispute duplicate votes
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 24, 2015 at 7:57 | history | undeleted | animusonStaffMod | ||
| Oct 10, 2015 at 3:52 | history | deleted | user259867 | via Vote | |
| Mar 12, 2015 at 1:15 | history | edited | user259867 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 31 characters in body
|
| Mar 12, 2015 at 1:14 | comment | added | Shog9 | Anna has added an informative confirmation pop-up to the button - see my edit for details. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 18:48 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @MartijnPieters A confirmation that asks them if they're sure that the other question solves their problem would seem sufficient, then, instead of throwing jargon at them that will make them uncertain. The issue is that honestly answering the question on the button shouldn't require knowledge of how SE works, and if they answer honestly, what should happen is obviously (to us) closing the now-unneeded question. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 3:54 | comment | added | David says Reinstate Monica | I 100% agree with this and think it would be fixed with some sort of undo button. Perhaps something similar to an undelete. If they dup closed their own question, they can reopen it within a 5 min grace period or something | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 22:24 | comment | added | Shog9 | The intention here is not to "trick" anyone; rather, the goal is to use terminology that prompts a response which lets us know which action would be in the best interest of the asker and then try to act appropriately as a result. A more explanatory confirmation may be useful here, but let's not get hung up on closing - the actual value here is in determining whether or not the identified duplicate is actually useful, and hopefully prompting clarification in cases where it isn't; closing just saves everyone else time and effort in cases where the identified original is sufficient. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 21:16 | comment | added | Martijn Pieters | I've seen 2 cases already of the OP closing their question based solely on a wrong dupe vote; they could not possibly have thought the other post helped them. The confirmation appears to be necessary. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 21:11 | comment | added | Tim | If it answered their question it should be closed as a dupe, no matter what a new user who is protective of their question seems to believe. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 21:06 | comment | added | Veedrac | I'm the kind of person that clicks things to see what they do - I'd be right bummed if it got me question closed. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 21:01 | comment | added | user259867 | @Tim If they don't want to mark it as a dupe, that's too bad. But in this case, tricking them into doing it with UI design reminds me of Quora's "click here to read the answer ... except you won't". It's not the sort of tactic I associate with Stack Exchange. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 20:58 | comment | added | NoviceSEMetaGeek | @Tim Right on!! | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 20:57 | comment | added | NoviceSEMetaGeek | It would be good to have the tooltip as well. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 20:35 | comment | added | Tim | There is no point using fancy words like "mark this question as duplicate"... for a start, users often don't know it is a question - they think it is a thread. secondly, they won't want to perform a bad action, and thirdly, they are likely to not want to mark as a dupe - it makes it sound to them like they made a mistake. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 20:15 | comment | added | user259867 | Intentionally withholding an explanation of what a button does is not quite in line with above all, be honest. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 20:12 | comment | added | Tim | If it solved their question, it should be marked as a duplicate. New users often seem to protest dupe / close comments, so explaining it fully may not help - they won't realise that closing as dupe isn't a bad thing. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 20:09 | history | answered | user259867 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |