Timeline for Can we use something other than reputation as the bottleneck for election primaries? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
33 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24 at 18:07 | history | closed | Bella_BlueStaffMod | Duplicate of What would you like to change about the moderator election process? | |
| Jun 24 at 18:06 | history | edited | Bella_BlueStaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 18, 2021 at 12:11 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://chat.meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://chat.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 18, 2021 at 12:07 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://chat.stackoverflow.com with https://chat.stackoverflow.com
|
|
| Aug 20, 2019 at 7:18 | comment | added | Dmitry Grigoryev | @James You say that a user who is 4 times more active will be a better mod than a less active user who has been around 4 times as long. I'm not convinced that's true. It's just that instead of "I have 10K more rep than you" it will be "I make 4K more rep per year than you". Hardly an improvement. | |
| May 23, 2017 at 12:36 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:43 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| S Apr 21, 2015 at 21:17 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Apr 21, 2015 at 21:17 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Apr 18, 2015 at 6:25 | answer | added | Matthew Purdon | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 13, 2015 at 20:00 | answer | added | Pollyanna | timeline score: 7 | |
| S Apr 13, 2015 at 19:52 | history | bounty started | bjb568 | ||
| S Apr 13, 2015 at 19:52 | history | notice added | bjb568 | Draw attention | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 17:12 | history | rollback | AstroCB |
Rollback to Revision 3
|
|
| S Apr 9, 2015 at 5:41 | history | suggested | TylerH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor grammar fix
|
| Apr 9, 2015 at 3:30 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 9, 2015 at 5:41 | |||||
| Apr 7, 2015 at 21:20 | comment | added | James | Surely someone (better at maths and code than me) can work out a basic algo? I mean, literally off the top of my mostly empty dimwitted head: Rep vs time as member, plus some other stuff, like total net good flags etc etc? One could be here for 6 years and have 10K rep and 1000 flags etc, or be here 1.5 years with the same stats. It can't be hard given DB access to rake together some decent method to determine what constitutes a good user. Rather than "I have 10K rep more than you - nah na na nana Thhhbssppp" etc | |
| Apr 7, 2015 at 18:46 | answer | added | Jon EricsonStaffMod | timeline score: 16 | |
| Apr 7, 2015 at 18:28 | history | edited | user50049 |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 7, 2015 at 18:26 | vote | accept | AstroCB | ||
| Apr 7, 2015 at 18:23 | answer | added | user50049 | timeline score: 28 | |
| Apr 7, 2015 at 15:46 | comment | added | Tim | Could it not just go by the score the user has? | |
| Apr 7, 2015 at 14:52 | answer | added | Monica Cellio | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 7, 2015 at 13:26 | comment | added | Brad Larson | While I understand the concern, in practice I haven't seen this actually block many good candidates. This used to be a problem in Stack Overflow elections before the moderation badge requirements were added, but those badges cut down on high-rep nominations significantly. In the last couple of elections (where the badge requirements were enforced), I only think a handful of people were forced out by this. | |
| Apr 7, 2015 at 7:42 | answer | added | Jason C | timeline score: 5 | |
| Apr 7, 2015 at 7:40 | history | edited | Patrick Hofman |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 7, 2015 at 7:29 | answer | added | Patrick Hofman | timeline score: 10 | |
| Apr 7, 2015 at 7:16 | answer | added | Qantas 94 Heavy | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 7, 2015 at 7:12 | comment | added | AstroCB | @JasonC You're right. Reputation is given to users based on reputation rather than moderation abilities. That's because we have no other solid metric to go by. For elections, we now do, and I think we should use it. Frankly, however, even that's not an ideal solution and I really don't think we should be bottlenecking candidates before primaries at all, but it's what we have to work with. | |
| Apr 7, 2015 at 7:07 | comment | added | AstroCB | @JasonC xkcd.com/1432 | |
| Apr 7, 2015 at 7:06 | comment | added | Jason C | Devil's advocate: While, in reality, we know that reputation != ability, the fact is all the mechanics on the site are designed to treat rep as an approximation of ability. Many community behaviors are defined using rep as an indicator, even though it is not correct. Using rep as a filter for elections, then, is consistent with the system. So while not a great indicator in reality, philosophically it seems right: If we decide on a different filter for this, then why stop here and not take it a step further by redefining site mechanics based on whatever new indicator is decided here? | |
| S Apr 7, 2015 at 6:47 | answer | added | AstroCB | timeline score: 28 | |
| S Apr 7, 2015 at 6:47 | history | asked | AstroCB | CC BY-SA 3.0 |