Timeline for Breaking the HNQ feedback loop on bad questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 28, 2018 at 9:01 | comment | added | user56reinstatemonica8 | @ghosts_in_the_code I think that would make the problem worse in practice. Conscientious users from other sites would read it and not vote. They're also the ones most likely to have been careful with their votes. Lazy users from other sites will ignore it and upvote the first answer they see that looks legit, as now. So the % of votes that have thought behind them will go down further. | |
| S Jul 14, 2017 at 11:41 | history | suggested | NVZ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor edits
|
| Jul 14, 2017 at 10:41 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 14, 2017 at 11:41 | |||||
| Mar 13, 2017 at 12:32 | comment | added | ghosts_in_the_code | Maybe there can just be a simple message at the top: "You are visiting a Hot Network Question on one of your non-native sites. Please do not up-vote/contribute unless you are confident that this question is on-topic on this site to prevent drawing of undue attention." ..... or something like that. | |
| Nov 12, 2016 at 3:34 | history | edited | Dom | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 204 characters in body
|
| Oct 28, 2016 at 12:37 | history | bounty ended | gnat | ||
| Oct 27, 2016 at 12:22 | comment | added | Ghanima | @MonicaCellio please be reminded that smaller sites may have a very small number of users with the "protect" privilege (as low as four - including two moderators and one absent user). Review queues with higher rep requirements do have a hard time on these smaller communities too. | |
| Oct 26, 2016 at 3:39 | comment | added | Cascabel | Sorry, my point was that the proposal in the question doesn't really treat all the symptoms - I'm agreeing with you. | |
| Oct 26, 2016 at 2:59 | comment | added | Dom | @Jefromi I'm going for the fix for the cause, not the symptoms. Admittedly, it won't be a silver bullet. What it will do is get the ball rolling in the right direction with sites having more power over what content gets on the HNQ. | |
| Oct 26, 2016 at 0:09 | comment | added | Cascabel | It also doesn't treat all the symptoms. It removes part of the feedback loop, perhaps, but the question is still going to be on the list for a while, and in that time you can get quite a lot of unproductive comments and disproportionate rep gain from upvotes. | |
| Oct 22, 2016 at 13:31 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo corrected
|
| Oct 20, 2016 at 16:12 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | Also, high-rep users (I'm thinking ones with the "protect" privilege) should be able to yank a question of the HNQ list. | |
| Oct 20, 2016 at 5:17 | comment | added | Nij | The idea of a "potential HNQ" review queue would give sites a good community-based method of how to promote themselves, and teach people how review queues should work long before they get to the ones that matter (like edits, close/open, VLQ). Benefits all round! | |
| Oct 20, 2016 at 4:53 | history | answered | Dom | CC BY-SA 3.0 |