Timeline for What does constructive criticism of a design change look like?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 11, 2018 at 22:45 | comment | added | Lawrence | @JonEricson That sounds intriguing and is worth noting on my question. (1) It shows developer engagement. (2) I don't really know what custom Q lists delivers even after reading the link, but if it combines and extends the 3 right-nav collections (Linked/Related/HNQ) intelligently while retaining the value of the 3 separate collections, it could swing sentiment back from 'oh no' back towards 'excited'. (3) This opens the possibility of dropping back to a 2-column format (currently 3-col: LNav, Content, RNav) to emphasise Content. Commenting on emphasising content would show you're listening. | |
| Oct 11, 2018 at 19:04 | comment | added | Jon Ericson Staff | @Lawrence: Part of the problem is that we have plans for the left nav that we can't actually put in motion without the left nav being everywhere. I could answer your question now, but it would be "please wait for us to show what we're planning with the left nav". Custom question lists could singlehandedly make the left nav worth it's salt. | |
| Oct 9, 2018 at 23:45 | comment | added | Lawrence | Hi @JonEricson and JoeFriend, thank you for taking the time to engage with us. I posted a feature-request about the Left Nav that was fairly well received. It's also, I think, a constructive post that 'puts you in my shoes' but it didn't get any developer response (at least, not visible to me on my question page). In light of your respective question and answer, how would you prefer me to frame my left-nav question so that it gets some developer attention? | |
| Oct 2, 2018 at 17:48 | comment | added | Draco18s no longer trusts SE | @JoeFriend How long was it between when the "new contributor" banner was announced and it rolling out live? Here's a hint: the announcement had mixed response (58% up, 42% down), highly upvoted "why?" or "it needs work" replies, and other criticism and yet five days later there's evidence of it being live. Sure sounds like "like it or not, we are going to do this anyway" to me. | |
| Aug 26, 2018 at 14:43 | comment | added | LinkBerest - SO sold our work | This post is how we (SE users) can give better feedback or edit feedback to make it better for SE. There is nothing in this post on how SE itself will give better feedback to us (even if we do this). You even state that we "show contempt to your team" and we "seem more interested in scoring points" (rep or points, I personally don't care about them and have never posted unless I had something to actually say). Yes, I saw occasionally but when this is the type of response we see, repeatedly, that is blame and it puts us even more on the defensive and loses more trust. | |
| Aug 26, 2018 at 8:53 | comment | added | Masked Man | Are you sure about that? I seem to recall having read a recent meta post or perhaps a comment where the feature was overwhelmingly opposed by the community and the response was "we don't care if you like it or not, we are going to do this anyway", albeit not using the same words, but the meaning is the same. Also, regardless of whether you have personally said this or not, the overall attitude towards user feedback from SE is contempt, when they don't hear what they want to hear. Some have even spoken about "ignoring" meta because their shiny new feature was criticized. | |
| Aug 25, 2018 at 23:37 | comment | added | Joe Friend StaffMod | @MaskedMan I don't think I've ever said those words or anything like them. Rejection of a feature request is more often about relative priorities and resource constraints than it is about how the code works or our opinion or desires related to a particular request. | |
| Aug 25, 2018 at 23:34 | comment | added | Joe Friend StaffMod | @JGreenwell This post is focused on how we could create a more constructive conversation. It isn't about laying blame on anyone. I don't think I've ever said meta users were to blaim for anything. Also, I wasn't actually talking about rep, but I understand how you could read it that way. Sorry for the confusion. | |
| Aug 25, 2018 at 17:53 | comment | added | Masked Man | "Uncivil disagreement, which is contempt based, is one in which you're playing to your own audience." That works both ways though. Every reasonable feature request that gets turned down because "our code works that way and we don't want to change it" gives exactly the same vibes. | |
| Aug 25, 2018 at 15:11 | comment | added | LinkBerest - SO sold our work | You realize by making a post like this you are saying "its all you SE users fault". Its a theme I keep seeing in post by the DAG team and not one part of this that admits to faults on DAG's side. If you want us to stop being on the defensive when we answer - stop blaming us. Btw, I have never and will never just put a post out for rep - I don't even care about rep - so its also insulting when you generalize meta users as doing this. | |
| Aug 23, 2018 at 15:36 | comment | added | Joe Friend StaffMod | @fbueckert I hear you and really appreciate what you're saying. TeamDAG and our Community team are actively listening. We can't respond to everything (and get other work done) but we really are listening. Sometimes it is hard to hear the signal for the noise. | |
| Aug 23, 2018 at 15:25 | comment | added | fbueckert | I get that contempt invites automatic dismissal. But when you have someone still here, trying to be heard, I believe that has some merit to it; if you're trying to retain your core userbase, then listening to those people, even if you decide not to adopt their ideas, is a good idea. These are the people that still care. It's when silence falls that you know you've lost them. Communication is a two way street, and users expressing frustration and contempt signals that it's breaking down, if not totally broken. | |
| Aug 23, 2018 at 15:13 | comment | added | Joe Friend StaffMod | @fbueckert It's not about what I or anyone else likes. It's about how human communication works. When you operate as Monica described it opens ears/minds. If you show contempt, then it tends to close them. Also, it might be worth realizing the many of the folks on TeamDAG are relatively new to the company. We may have a fresh perspective and an open ear. | |
| Aug 23, 2018 at 13:08 | comment | added | fbueckert | I think one thing that's missing from this equation is that many core users are incredibly frustrated at SE's actions. I have no doubt many people started at respectful, only to be ignored, for years (see Gnat's answer here). At some point, that turns into over the top language to just have someone, anyone listen to their concerns and acknowledge them. While how you say something is important, discounting the core userbase that's been yelling for years because they're not saying it in a way you like just makes it worse. At some point, something has to give. | |
| Aug 22, 2018 at 22:07 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | The approach Joe describes works. I don't always get the design change I want (nor should I expect to), but when I've explained to him what problem I am having, what I have tried to do to solve it, how that failed, and optionally my ideas for how he could solve it, I've gotten good results (most famously with the new top bar). Key to this approach is treating the person you're trying to influence respectfully, like a fellow decent human being who also wants a good outcome for users. Do we disagree on what that looks like? Sure. Can we work together anyway? Yes! | |
| Aug 22, 2018 at 21:17 | comment | added | Joe Friend StaffMod | @kevinb I would go one further and say that I don't think coming up with a solution is even important (though it can be nice). I'm most interested in understanding usage scenarios and how they impact you. Put me in your shoes and you can motivate me to come up with a solution. | |
| Aug 22, 2018 at 21:04 | comment | added | Adam Lear StaffMod | @KevinB You don't have to lay out full solutions. That's not always even possible from the "outside", as it were. "Justify your feature request" tends to get conflated a bunch here on meta with "explain how you'd solve your problem", but it's by far not a requirement for giving us feedback. | |
| Aug 22, 2018 at 19:48 | comment | added | Kevin B | i’m not saying harmful feedback should be elevated. | |
| Aug 22, 2018 at 19:36 | comment | added | Jon Ericson Staff | @KevinB: And yet . . . this is regularly what we demand of askers on our sites. And for good reason. The more roadblocks you place in front of people you are seeking help from, the harder it is them to respond productively. Our professional designers are routinely told they are bad at their jobs. I respectfully submit that's no different than a new user complaining their question wasn't answered. | |
| Aug 22, 2018 at 19:22 | comment | added | SOLO | Are you sure about the "hit the reset button on our relationship" bit? For the past decade, that phrase has had some connotations that I suspect don't match your intention. | |
| Aug 22, 2018 at 19:21 | comment | added | Kevin B | The idea of only considering feedback that is properly formed is quite off putting. I don't have time or the will to put forth the effort to come up with solutions to the problems i see with this site, I have my own projects to complete. That shouldn't diminish the feedback I can provide. | |
| Aug 22, 2018 at 19:11 | history | answered | Joe FriendStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |