Timeline for We'd like your feedback on our new Code of Conduct!
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 16, 2018 at 6:45 | comment | added | Sami Kuhmonen | One good part here is the last clarification: the suggested says if someone says you're making others uncomfortable while yours is suggesting if I feel uncomfortable I should say something. This is a great point. It shouldn't be someone saying for others, it should be me speaking up for myself. And we all can do that. And then it can't be abused with "I claim there are people uncomfortable but won't tell who and just want to police discussion so stop it now." | |
| Jul 6, 2018 at 23:00 | comment | added | hatchet - done with SOverflow | I like your points, but would suggest please listen to the criticism of others be changed to please listen to the input of others. Many comments about improving questions are not criticism. | |
| Jul 6, 2018 at 14:16 | comment | added | allo | @MarkAmery I think it is much better. You are not here to educate the people how to ask, this should only be a side effect. And a user which was asked three times to PLEASE add the corresponding code will get the hint for his fourth question. If you try too much to tell him "you're doing it wrong" he will just be discouraged to participate. Leading by good example is so much better than constant complaining and trying to form users. People will pick up the good habits when they live with them while using the site, even when they are not explicitly educated to do so. | |
| Jul 6, 2018 at 2:06 | comment | added | user64742 | I would say that the sample comment is not offensive nor in any way rude. It's clearly telling the person to post their comment. If a mod came over and posted that comment while closing a post, I'd say the comment made complete sense. They are essentially telling the user they did wrong and they did do wrong. Sugarcoating that a user screwed up in some fashion shouldn't occur here. A mistake in the actual understanding of their problem is one thing, but a user failing to provide a proper query should allow for minor polite scolding by people who are in a place of authority. | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 19:12 | comment | added | John Bollinger | I think it's a miss to change "make it as easy as possible for others to help you" to "listen to the criticism of others". Making it easy for others is much broader, and in particular, it extends to writing questions, before there's any opportunity to receive criticism. I do, however, think the suggested changes to the paragraph body are mostly an improvement. | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 15:21 | comment | added | Mark Amery | ... [2/2] answerer. Without inspiring that kind of empathy, the comment is far less useful even at the narrow goal of just making this question answerable; with your formulation, our confused asker is likely to simply obey and paste a few lines of code that include line 49, without stating which line in the block is line 49, leaving the question still unanswerable. In general we should be aiming to help new askers understand how to ask good questions and encourage them to thoughtfully attempt to do so - not aiming to obtain their mindless obedience of ad-hoc instructions from answerers. | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 15:21 | comment | added | Mark Amery | @allo I very much disagree with the idea that "The error says at line 49 and you posted line 1 to 7. Please add the relevant code around line 49 to the question" would be a better formulation of the comment, for two reasons. Firstly, it doesn't convey that anything was done wrong by the asker, which does matter, because without them realising that they'll likely repeat the same mistake in future without realising that it's a problem. Secondly, it doesn't clearly convey the motivation behind the request or lead the asker to seeing their question through the eyes of a potential ... [1/2] | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 14:25 | comment | added | RiggsFolly | Agree with all of this, but specially point2. We want your question to help not just you, but anyone else with that question as well. Most new users totally miss this basic concept of SO and can get quite nasty when you try to improve or suggest they improve their questions. | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 12:28 | comment | added | Machavity | @allo Again, not disputing it could have been done better, but I don't want this to be a one-sided conversation either. | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 12:23 | comment | added | allo |
I would not have been offended. I just saw that you could try to avoid negativity a bit more, while making it possibly even more terse. But I object to your a frustrated user who has read the n-th "Why this no work?" line. For me as someone reading your comment it does not matter if this is the first or 100th annyoing post you read today, I do not even know it. But I expect that you are as nice as you were when commenting the first or possibly just do not comment (at this time) because you are already annoyed. Nobody else should suffer more because their question is read after others.
|
|
| Jul 5, 2018 at 12:17 | comment | added | Machavity | @allo I've never claimed it was perfect. And your criticism is valid. But the problem is that it was held up as an example of "SO culture is rude/broken", when all I see is a frustrated user who has read the n-th "Why this no work?" question for today and no longer cares about being nice while still trying to not cross the rude line. Most of the time this subject comes up, it's only ever mentioned that the curators must change, without any acknowledgement of the fact that, without curators to tamp down the bad questions, SO would be overrun with bad questions and spam. | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 12:06 | comment | added | allo | The comment in the screenshot could be improved: "The error says at line 49 and you posted line 1 to 7. Please add the relevant code around line 49 to the question". Just a nice question without implying that the poster is doing something wrong (even when he actually is) and something which can easily be acted on (just posting the relevant code). In the end it does not matter if he did it wrong, it matters that the mistake is corrected so the question can be answered. One big hint is the word "clearly", which makes your comment looking condescending, even when it is not intended that way. | |
| Jul 4, 2018 at 9:21 | comment | added | Mark Amery | And finally, I agree completely with the point about the "uncomfortable" rule being ludicrously broad. Not only is there no "be reasonable" exception, but there isn't even an exception for disengaging from the interaction, which seems notable since ignoring someone is itself a behaviour that may make them uncomfortable. As written, the rule is basically a "Simon Says" clause; it amounts to "you are required to unquestioningly obey instructions from anybody who uses this magical sequence of words". | |
| Jul 4, 2018 at 9:17 | comment | added | Mark Amery | I like basically every detail of this answer. I particularly like the fact that the guidance to askers doesn't presume that all criticism they'll receive is valid and that they should blindly follow instructions they're given, but instead asks them to "pay attention" to it and explicitly notes that guidance will only be useful "most of the time". | |
| Jul 4, 2018 at 9:14 | comment | added | Mark Amery | @NicolBolas "The first sentence only made sense if we assume the OP isn't smart enough to know that, when an error message says a line number, that's where the error was detected" - which may genuinely be the case. Don't underestimate the tendency of beginner programmers to not even try to read and understand the words that make up an error message, but instead to just write it off as technobabble that they have no hope of successfully interpreting. I don't think the first sentence is redundant; I think it's advice that some askers genuinely need. | |
| Jul 4, 2018 at 8:39 | comment | added | Display Name | @artem borderline? huh? It's obviously completely fine. The questioner just was not able to face the fiasco and thought it's a good idea to accuse other people of being unwelcoming, out of spite. | |
| Jul 4, 2018 at 6:23 | comment | added | artem | @Nicol I agree that your comment is better. But I think the other comment is also OK, borderline but OK. I don't remember the exact details of that question and whether the necessary information was eventually provided or not, but if not - not providing information when asked shows the intent clearly. | |
| Jul 4, 2018 at 6:20 | comment | added | Nicol Bolas | As to whether you feel that being told something you already know is insulting, I'll take you at your word that you feel that way. But it doesn't make you right. Generally speaking, most people will respond to being told something they obviously already know with eye-rolling, indignation, or sarcasm: "Thanks, Captain Obvious! Got anymore useless facts to share?" Good, effective communication is all about triggering the right response. If the first sentence of your post triggers a negative response, it no longer matters how useful the rest is. | |
| Jul 4, 2018 at 6:17 | comment | added | Nicol Bolas | @artem: The word "withholding" implies intent. You cannot accidentally "withhold" something. You can forget to provide it, but that's different from "withholding" it. One is an accident; the other is deliberate. It's imprecision like that which makes the difference between what is and is not respectful, nice, or welcoming. "You forgot to provide X" is a very different statement from "you withheld X". | |
| Jul 4, 2018 at 6:07 | comment | added | artem | I don't consider that comment insulting. How do I know the OP is "withholding"? Because they did not provide it in the question. Forgetting to mention something is not an excuse for wasting other people time. | |
| Jul 4, 2018 at 6:00 | comment | added | Nicol Bolas | @artem: "that's what is insulting" And that makes insulting them back OK? However disrespectful you may find it for someone to not provide all of the information needed to approach a problem, that's no excuse for being a jerk. | |
| Jul 4, 2018 at 5:59 | comment | added | Nicol Bolas | @artem: I posted the much more terse comment without the insulting language: "You didn't tell us what line 49 was." That's the information that needs to be communicated. Terseness has nothing to do with being insulting. And how do you know that the OP is "withholding" anything? Were they unwilling to provide that information if it was requested in a non-condescending way? It seems to me that the OP may well have forgotten to mention it and needed a nudge. That's hardly an excuse for the insult. | |
| Jul 4, 2018 at 5:53 | comment | added | artem | @Nicol Expecting others to solve the problem, but withholding the information necessary to solve the problem - that's what is insulting. The "terseness" of comment serves as an example, it shows necessary level of precision that's expected when someone is stating the facts here. | |
| Jul 4, 2018 at 0:48 | comment | added | Nicol Bolas | @Machavity: "It was read as openly hostile, when I simply read it as a terse statement. It didn't attack anyone, it just stated facts." The first sentence only made sense if we assume the OP isn't smart enough to know that, when an error message says a line number, that's where the error was detected. Reminding someone of something they obviously know is prima facie insulting. And the second sentence similarly didn't need to remind the OP they only posted 7 lines of code. The only useful information is "you didn't tell us what line 49 was." | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 20:47 | comment | added | Draco18s no longer trusts SE |
I want to upvote this once for each point it makes. Especially calling out closing questions is being helpful, but may not seem welcoming to a new user and It was read as openly hostile, when I simply read it as a terse statement. It didn't attack anyone, it just stated facts.
|
|
| Jul 3, 2018 at 20:17 | history | answered | Machavity | CC BY-SA 4.0 |