Timeline for Should the weight of question upvotes be increased network-wide?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
70 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 7, 2019 at 13:14 | comment | added | David Hammen | Unfortunately, the only way to fix this huge mistake would be to make answers worth 20 points (or more), but that downplays the bounties given to very good questions / good answers. My suggested short-term remedy: Double every point / bonus that hasn't already been doubled in the past month. And then rethink, carefully. | |
| Dec 7, 2019 at 13:05 | comment | added | David Hammen | Given all the answers that said NO and all of the comments that said NO, why in the world did StackOverflow say YES? | |
| Nov 21, 2019 at 11:51 | answer | added | lampshade | timeline score: 5 | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 16:47 | answer | added | bobobobo | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 16:08 | answer | added | CharonX | timeline score: 5 | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 10:15 | comment | added | user612952 | Nope. If the leaks are to be believed, the sole reason for this change isn't to actually incentivize asking, or to help the community. It's because "women ask more than they answer, and this was bad for inclusivity because reasons". | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 2:04 | answer | added | Ellie K | timeline score: 6 | |
| Nov 16, 2019 at 12:11 | history | reopened |
Stormblessed Pierre.Vriens Rand al'Thor S.L. Barth is on codidact.com Eliah Kagan |
||
| Nov 16, 2019 at 5:20 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Nov 16, 2019 at 12:11 | |||||
| Nov 16, 2019 at 5:17 | history | closed |
Jason Bassford auden Robert Columbia bjb568 Robert Longson |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Nov 16, 2019 at 4:53 | comment | added | Rob | Related: meta.stackexchange.com/q/338143/282094 - it's debatable whether that's partially a duplicate of this question. | |
| Nov 16, 2019 at 3:05 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 16, 2019 at 5:17 | |||||
| Nov 15, 2019 at 1:10 | comment | added | Mateen Ulhaq | Honestly, setting question upvotes to +2 or +0 would both be far better changes for Stack Overflow than this. | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 15:05 | answer | added | Luis Mendo | timeline score: 16 | |
| Nov 13, 2019 at 21:16 | comment | added | Ian Ringrose | This has just been declared on stackoverflow.blog/2019/11/13/… I have posted a link to this meta | |
| Nov 13, 2019 at 21:10 | answer | added | De Novo | timeline score: 33 | |
| Nov 13, 2019 at 19:52 | comment | added | Peilonrayz | I'm fairly new to meta meta, could you help educate me on the voting etiquette here. Whilst I think the post is asking a good question, but I don't agree with it. Do I upvote or downvote? On my local meta it's downvote, but if it were a main it'd be an upvote. | |
| Nov 13, 2019 at 19:01 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | So ... the reduction of question upvote weight was a imposed-from-on-high alternative to a highly upvoted suggestion to increase the weight of downvotes. That proposal was there for a reason (or at least for a percieved reason, we didn't have quite the same quantitative tools at the time). Has that original problem gone away? If not, what is being done to address it now that the "fix" is being revoked? | |
| Nov 13, 2019 at 18:30 | comment | added | LаngLаngС | Looking up, at the right side of the bar it becomes ever more obvious that It gets increasingly pointless to invest any effort in this type of question. From leak to now below this Q I don't see any decision maker even listening? We're navel-gazing and don't even see our own toe tips while there is a lot of shouting. Le fin. | |
| Nov 13, 2019 at 18:29 | comment | added | John Omielan | @JoKing As you can see now, or very soon, SE is going ahead with increasing the votes per question (Sara Chipps also has a blog post of We’re Rewarding the Question Askers, with header links to it). Here on this meta, my reputation has already changed by several hundred more, but not yet on Math SE (although I only wrote 2 questions there). | |
| Nov 13, 2019 at 3:06 | comment | added | Jo King | According to the leak, the changes should be going ahead tomorrow, unless SE has been persuaded otherwise by these recent posts or some level-headed moderators | |
| Nov 12, 2019 at 15:20 | comment | added | Caleb | @gnat No way, because by enlarge most casual users will only see this as a way to boost their rep, while only those people active in moderation activities will feel the damage it does. That alone will weight voting on such an announcement enough to keep it out of that Mariana Trench. | |
| Nov 12, 2019 at 11:28 | comment | added | gnat | wonder if the official announcement of such a change would be able to reach lower score than infamous apology | |
| Nov 11, 2019 at 15:13 | answer | added | yhyrcanus | timeline score: 9 | |
| Nov 11, 2019 at 14:20 | answer | added | Sir Cornflakes | timeline score: 13 | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 18:14 | answer | added | GhostCat | timeline score: 18 | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 15:54 | answer | added | anonymous | timeline score: 33 | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 12:19 | answer | added | Mari-Lou A Слава Україні | timeline score: 10 | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 11:01 | comment | added | Mast | Wouldn't that be quality sacrificed on the altar of friendliness instead? | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 10:02 | answer | added | Ian Ringrose | timeline score: 8 | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 8:09 | comment | added | Sklivvz Mod | No, and furthermore privilege levels should be increased to increase the quality of moderation. Bad closures are not solved by having more, less experience closers. | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 7:31 | answer | added | I am not the way you speak | timeline score: 29 | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 6:42 | answer | added | Caleb | timeline score: 20 | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 2:50 | answer | added | Rebecca J. Stones | timeline score: 99 | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 1:44 | comment | added | Jo King | If it's anything like the previous question, this will be closed unfairly as "primarily opinion based", get a several comment rant by a moderator and then be deleted by the same mod for "the [sake] of consistency, fairness and a certain desire to respect the spirit and letter of the rules" | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 1:29 | comment | added | user245382 | @scohe001 Because it'll 1) Be deleted by mods/staff, and 2) I might get punished for posting the link | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 1:28 | comment | added | user540056 | Suggestion for improvement, as the OP asked: What problem does SE think this would solve? My answer may have been too flip -- I said in part that the question was trying to solve a problem that did not exist. But maybe I was wrong. | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 1:05 | answer | added | Mithical | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 1:03 | comment | added | scohe001 | @House I don't mean to be rude, but why not just give Eric a link instead of being cryptic and making everyone reading do more work? | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 1:00 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 10, 2019 at 1:53 | |||||
| Nov 10, 2019 at 0:57 | comment | added | user245382 | @EricWofsey StackExchange staff doesn't want you to know. They're keeping that secret to everybody except moderators. If you search hard enough, though, you might be able to find an archived link. | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 0:35 | comment | added | Eric Wofsey | Where and how did Stack Exchange express this interest? Is there a link you can provide, or some additional context you can describe? | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 0:29 | answer | added | shabunc | timeline score: 71 | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 22:42 | answer | added | user540056 | timeline score: 50 | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 22:07 | comment | added | Ian Ringrose | Is asking ths worth the risk of them giving you 30 days? | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 21:39 | answer | added | Stop Harming the Community | timeline score: 39 | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 19:47 | comment | added | Script47 | Absolutely not. @HerMajestyQueenofARC has excellently expressed my thoughts on this matter so I thought I'd leave a comment instead. BTW, I'm not sure how to even vote on this question... | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 19:47 | comment | added | John Omielan | As the comment stated, a basically duplicate question was recently asked, and then deleted by a mod very shortly after it was closed. I gave this answer there, but won't bother giving it (or anything similar to it) here as I suspect it'll just be deleted again. | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 19:14 | comment | added | Rubiksmoose | @πάνταῥεῖ I think he was very clear on that point and I wasn't confused about it. I'm more confused about why he thinks that the change has anything to do with friendliness especially at the expense of quality. I think there are arguments to be made in both sides as far as quality goes, but his seems to draw on some knowledge of what he thinks the intent of the change is. Robert, I'd be interested to see this fleshed out in an answer to understand you better. | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 19:11 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | @RobertHarvey I think you should add your own answer, too. This question will be down voted to oblivion (though you have enough reputation to spare ;) | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 19:11 | comment | added | πάντα ῥεῖ | @Rubiksmoose Robert already stated he doesn't think tha's a good idea. | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 19:09 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | @Rubiksmoose Because way more people and new users are coming to sites to ask questions. If they get reputation more easily, friendliness factor increases. | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 19:08 | comment | added | Rubiksmoose | @RobertHarvey I'm pretty meh about the whole change, but I have no idea how you think friendliness plays into the change at all.. | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 19:06 | history | edited | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 13 characters in body; edited title
|
| Nov 9, 2019 at 19:03 | answer | added | Resistance Is Futile | timeline score: 275 | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 19:02 | comment | added | πάντα ῥεῖ | I could be OK with that, if the weight of downvotes would be drastically increased as well. | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 18:39 | history | edited | GlorfindelMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Nov 9, 2019 at 18:38 | comment | added | Glorfindel Mod | @RobertHarvey you're right, but since my answer there (and probably a few others as well) doesn't discuss the baggage, I think it's OK to repost it. | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 18:37 | answer | added | GlorfindelMod | timeline score: 120 | |
| S Nov 9, 2019 at 18:37 | history | suggested | ento | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fix spelling, add missing verb
|
| Nov 9, 2019 at 18:36 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 9, 2019 at 18:37 | |||||
| Nov 9, 2019 at 18:31 | history | edited | πάντα ῥεῖ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 14 characters in body
|
| Nov 9, 2019 at 18:30 | comment | added | user102937 | @glorfindel that other question looked like it carried a lot of irrelevant baggage. | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 18:29 | comment | added | πάντα ῥεῖ | @Rob "I think it's just one more push towards friendliness, sacrificed on the altar of quality." Hmm, very questionable IMO. Insofar you're right to ask. | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 18:27 | comment | added | user102937 | I don't think it's a good idea at all. I think it's just one more push towards friendliness, sacrificed on the altar of quality. | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 18:25 | comment | added | Glorfindel Mod | Note: a similar question was already deleted. | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 18:23 | comment | added | πάντα ῥεῖ | I well know, that was why I didn't propose it as a dupe. Can you elaborate more why you think that would (could) be a good idiea (besides attracting more new users that SE can benefit from for commercial reasons)? | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 18:21 | comment | added | user102937 | That question was closed as a duplicate of something that's asking the opposite of what I'm asking | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 18:20 | comment | added | πάντα ῥεῖ | meta.stackexchange.com/questions/337741/… | |
| Nov 9, 2019 at 18:18 | history | asked | user102937 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |