I could also understand that you're going to want patience, but I have to say at least for myself that patience is a luxury that Stack Overflow no longer has. You're going to need to earn back our trust, and you're going to need to work hard to do that. The long standing members in the community who have stuck through this for ineffable reasons or rationale do not have to provide yet more talking points for you to start rebuilding the relationship. We have left everything we wanted to staysay on the Metas. Some of us have painstakingly gone out of our way to leave sign posts on how to find everything. Please actually look for it.
I could also understand that you're going to want patience, but I have to say at least for myself that patience is a luxury that Stack Overflow no longer has. You're going to need to earn back our trust, and you're going to need to work hard to do that. The long standing members in the community who have stuck through this for ineffable reasons or rationale do not have to provide yet more talking points for you to start rebuilding the relationship. We have left everything we wanted to stay on the Metas. Some of us have painstakingly gone out of our way to leave sign posts on how to find everything. Please actually look for it.
I could also understand that you're going to want patience, but I have to say at least for myself that patience is a luxury that Stack Overflow no longer has. You're going to need to earn back our trust, and you're going to need to work hard to do that. The long standing members in the community who have stuck through this for ineffable reasons or rationale do not have to provide yet more talking points for you to start rebuilding the relationship. We have left everything we wanted to say on the Metas. Some of us have painstakingly gone out of our way to leave sign posts on how to find everything. Please actually look for it.
While what happened in late '19 was a fairly sizable blowup - and some of the scars are still fresh in parts of the community - just looking at that instance alone ignores a whole lot of other problems that surfaced. In effect, the volunteer curators whowhich make sites like this viable at all are being marginalized, or often have their conventions violated by the company for experimentation purposes.
Whatever conversations your team is having about how to move the community forward only ever happen in secret, and aren't out in the open. What does make its way out into the open are changes that no one in the community is asking for, and that creates this indescribable angst when we see that the company has gone away for months at a time to do A Thing™ to only come back down the mountain, showcasing a service that we just didn't ask for. Then, when you actually do come down and we try to politely ask about the things that need attention, we could consider it fortunate if you only ignored us.
Then you get this vicious cycle of how we're so mean when we openly and loudly reject features that you have poured a lot of love and energy into, and I could at least get that hurt, but the problem isn't that there wasn't a lot of care put into it, it's just that we didn't exactly care about it. Worse, when you actually do deliver something we really like, it gets no fanfare - the fact that you're experimenting with reducing the close votes down from 5 to 3 is a revolutionary thing in content moderation, and we only mentioned it...maybe a month and a half ago when it finally came around to being launched on more sites than Stack Overflow. Instead, our timeline and our energy areis a bit absorbed with this "Collectives" thing that you're really hoping the community just goes along with, and I've already left pointed feedback on this feature. I'm not holding out faith, but there's a non-zero chance that this time you'll actually look at it.
At this point, I understand that you're probably going to want more references or resources to get you started on your way, but I maintain quite adamantly that there are people on the team who have claimed to already have done extensive research on Meta to figure a lot of this out. The only insulting part about that is that it feels like the research being done or the answers sought from the community are never the discussions we have. But hey, it's a start at least.
I could also understand that you're going to want patience, but I have to say at least for myself that patience is a luxury that Stack Overflow no longer has. You're going to need to earn back our trust, and you're going to need to work hard to do that. The long-standing standing members in the community who have stuck through this for ineffable reasons or rationale do not have to provide yet more talking points for you to start rebuilding the relationship. We have left everything we wanted to stay on the Metas. Some of us have painstakingly gone out of our way to leave sign posts on how to find everything. Please actually look for it.
While what happened in late '19 was a fairly sizable blowup - and some of the scars are still fresh in parts of the community - just looking at that instance alone ignores a whole lot of other problems that surfaced. In effect, the volunteer curators who make sites like this viable at all are being marginalized, or often have their conventions violated by the company for experimentation purposes.
Whatever conversations your team is having about how to move the community forward only ever happen in secret, and aren't out in the open. What does make its way out into the open are changes that no one in the community is asking for, and that creates this indescribable angst when we see that the company has gone away for months at a time to do A Thing™ to only come back down the mountain, showcasing a service that we just didn't ask for. Then, when you actually do come down and we try to politely ask about the things that need attention, we could consider it fortunate if you only ignored us.
Then you get this vicious cycle of how we're so mean when we openly and loudly reject features that you have poured a lot of love and energy into, and I could at least get that hurt, but the problem isn't that there wasn't a lot of care put into it, it's just that we didn't exactly care about it. Worse, when you actually do deliver something we really like, it gets no fanfare - the fact that you're experimenting with reducing the close votes down from 5 to 3 is a revolutionary thing in content moderation, and we only mentioned it...maybe a month and a half ago when it finally came around to being launched on more sites than Stack Overflow. Instead, our timeline and our energy are a bit absorbed with this "Collectives" thing that you're really hoping the community just goes along with, and I've already left pointed feedback on this feature. I'm not holding out faith, but there's a non-zero chance that this time you'll actually look at it.
At this point, I understand that you're probably going to want more references or resources to get you started on your way, but I maintain quite adamantly that there are people on the team who have claimed to already have done extensive research on Meta to figure a lot of this out. The only insulting part about that is that it feels like the research being done or the answers sought from the community are never the discussions we have. But hey, it's a start at least.
I could also understand that you're going to want patience, but I have to say at least for myself that patience is a luxury that Stack Overflow no longer has. You're going to need to earn back our trust, and you're going to need to work hard to do that. The long-standing members in the community who have stuck through this for ineffable reasons or rationale do not have to provide yet more talking points for you to start rebuilding the relationship. We have left everything we wanted to stay on the Metas. Some of us have painstakingly gone out of our way to leave sign posts on how to find everything. Please actually look for it.
While what happened in late '19 was a fairly sizable blowup - and some of the scars are still fresh in parts of the community - just looking at that instance alone ignores a whole lot of other problems that surfaced. In effect, the volunteer curators which make sites like this viable at all are being marginalized, or often have their conventions violated by the company for experimentation purposes.
Whatever conversations your team is having about how to move community forward only ever happen in secret, and aren't out in the open. What does make its way out into the open are changes that no one in the community is asking for, and that creates this indescribable angst when we see that the company has gone away for months at a time to do A Thing™ to only come back down the mountain, showcasing a service that we just didn't ask for. Then, when you actually do come down and we try to politely ask about the things that need attention, we could consider it fortunate if you only ignored us.
Then you get this vicious cycle of how we're so mean when we openly and loudly reject features that you have poured a lot of love and energy into, and I could at least get that hurt, but the problem isn't that there wasn't a lot of care put into it, it's just that we didn't exactly care about it. Worse, when you actually do deliver something we really like, it gets no fanfare - the fact that you're experimenting with reducing the close votes down from 5 to 3 is a revolutionary thing in content moderation, and we only mentioned it...maybe a month and a half ago when it finally came around to being launched on more sites than Stack Overflow. Instead, our timeline and our energy is a bit absorbed with this "Collectives" thing that you're really hoping the community just goes along with, and I've already left pointed feedback on this feature. I'm not holding out faith, but there's a non-zero chance that this time you'll actually look at it.
At this point I understand that you're probably going to want more references or resources to get you started on your way, but I maintain quite adamantly that there are people on the team who have claimed to already have done extensive research on Meta to figure a lot of this out. The only insulting part about that is that it feels like the research being done or the answers sought from the community are never the discussions we have. But hey, it's a start at least.
I could also understand that you're going to want patience, but I have to say at least for myself that patience is a luxury that Stack Overflow no longer has. You're going to need to earn back our trust, and you're going to need to work hard to do that. The long standing members in the community who have stuck through this for ineffable reasons or rationale do not have to provide yet more talking points for you to start rebuilding the relationship. We have left everything we wanted to stay on the Metas. Some of us have painstakingly gone out of our way to leave sign posts on how to find everything. Please actually look for it.
While what happened in late '19 was a fairly sizable blowup - and some of the scars are still fresh in parts of the community - just looking at that instance alone ignores a whole lot of other problems that surfaced. In effect, the volunteer curators whichwho make sites like this viable at all are being marginalized, or often have their conventions violated by the company for experimentation purposes.
Whatever conversations your team is having about how to move the community forward only ever happen in secret, and aren't out in the open. What does make its way out into the open are changes that no one in the community is asking for, and that creates this indescribable angst when we see that the company has gone away for months at a time to do A Thing™ to only come back down the mountain, showcasing a service that we just didn't ask for. Then, when you actually do come down and we try to politely ask about the things that need attention, we could consider it fortunate if you only ignored us.
Then you get this vicious cycle of how we're so mean when we openly and loudly reject features that you have poured a lot of love and energy into, and I could at least get that hurt, but the problem isn't that there wasn't a lot of care put into it, it's just that we didn't exactly care about it. Worse, when you actually do deliver something we really like, it gets no fanfare - the fact that you're experimenting with reducing the close votes down from 5 to 3 is a revolutionary thing in content moderation, and we only mentioned it...maybe a month and a half ago when it finally came around to being launched on more sites than Stack Overflow. Instead, our timeline and our energy isare a bit absorbed with this "Collectives" thing that you're really hoping the community just goes along with, and I've already left pointed feedback on this feature. I'm not holding out faith, but there's a non-zero chance that this time you'll actually look at it.
At this point, I understand that you're probably going to want more references or resources to get you started on your way, but I maintain quite adamantly that there are people on the team who have claimed to already have done extensive research on Meta to figure a lot of this out. The only insulting part about that is that it feels like the research being done or the answers sought from the community are never the discussions we have. But hey, it's a start at least.
I could also understand that you're going to want patience, but I have to say at least for myself that patience is a luxury that Stack Overflow no longer has. You're going to need to earn back our trust, and you're going to need to work hard to do that. The long standing-standing members in the community who have stuck through this for ineffable reasons or rationale do not have to provide yet more talking points for you to start rebuilding the relationship. We have left everything we wanted to stay on the Metas. Some of us have painstakingly gone out of our way to leave sign posts on how to find everything. Please actually look for it.
While what happened in late '19 was a fairly sizable blowup - and some of the scars are still fresh in parts of the community - just looking at that instance alone ignores a whole lot of other problems that surfaced. In effect, the volunteer curators which make sites like this viable at all are being marginalized, or often have their conventions violated by the company for experimentation purposes.
Whatever conversations your team is having about how to move community forward only ever happen in secret, and aren't out in the open. What does make its way out into the open are changes that no one in the community is asking for, and that creates this indescribable angst when we see that the company has gone away for months at a time to do A Thing™ to only come back down the mountain, showcasing a service that we just didn't ask for. Then, when you actually do come down and we try to politely ask about the things that need attention, we could consider it fortunate if you only ignored us.
Then you get this vicious cycle of how we're so mean when we openly and loudly reject features that you have poured a lot of love and energy into, and I could at least get that hurt, but the problem isn't that there wasn't a lot of care put into it, it's just that we didn't exactly care about it. Worse, when you actually do deliver something we really like, it gets no fanfare - the fact that you're experimenting with reducing the close votes down from 5 to 3 is a revolutionary thing in content moderation, and we only mentioned it...maybe a month and a half ago when it finally came around to being launched on more sites than Stack Overflow. Instead, our timeline and our energy is a bit absorbed with this "Collectives" thing that you're really hoping the community just goes along with, and I've already left pointed feedback on this feature. I'm not holding out faith, but there's a non-zero chance that this time you'll actually look at it.
At this point I understand that you're probably going to want more references or resources to get you started on your way, but I maintain quite adamantly that there are people on the team who have claimed to already have done extensive research on Meta to figure a lot of this out. The only insulting part about that is that it feels like the research being done or the answers sought from the community are never the discussions we have. But hey, it's a start at least.
I could also understand that you're going to want patience, but I have to say at least for myself that patience is a luxury that Stack Overflow no longer has. You're going to need to earn back our trust, and you're going to need to work hard to do that. The long standing members in the community who have stuck through this for ineffable reasons or rationale do not have to provide yet more talking points for you to start rebuilding the relationship. We have left everything we wanted to stay on the Metas. Some of us have painstakingly gone out of our way to leave sign posts on how to find everything. Please actually look for it.
While what happened in late '19 was a fairly sizable blowup - and some of the scars are still fresh in parts of the community - just looking at that instance alone ignores a whole lot of other problems that surfaced. In effect, the volunteer curators who make sites like this viable at all are being marginalized, or often have their conventions violated by the company for experimentation purposes.
Whatever conversations your team is having about how to move the community forward only ever happen in secret, and aren't out in the open. What does make its way out into the open are changes that no one in the community is asking for, and that creates this indescribable angst when we see that the company has gone away for months at a time to do A Thing™ to only come back down the mountain, showcasing a service that we just didn't ask for. Then, when you actually do come down and we try to politely ask about the things that need attention, we could consider it fortunate if you only ignored us.
Then you get this vicious cycle of how we're so mean when we openly and loudly reject features that you have poured a lot of love and energy into, and I could at least get that hurt, but the problem isn't that there wasn't a lot of care put into it, it's just that we didn't exactly care about it. Worse, when you actually do deliver something we really like, it gets no fanfare - the fact that you're experimenting with reducing the close votes down from 5 to 3 is a revolutionary thing in content moderation, and we only mentioned it...maybe a month and a half ago when it finally came around to being launched on more sites than Stack Overflow. Instead, our timeline and our energy are a bit absorbed with this "Collectives" thing that you're really hoping the community just goes along with, and I've already left pointed feedback on this feature. I'm not holding out faith, but there's a non-zero chance that this time you'll actually look at it.
At this point, I understand that you're probably going to want more references or resources to get you started on your way, but I maintain quite adamantly that there are people on the team who have claimed to already have done extensive research on Meta to figure a lot of this out. The only insulting part about that is that it feels like the research being done or the answers sought from the community are never the discussions we have. But hey, it's a start at least.
I could also understand that you're going to want patience, but I have to say at least for myself that patience is a luxury that Stack Overflow no longer has. You're going to need to earn back our trust, and you're going to need to work hard to do that. The long-standing members in the community who have stuck through this for ineffable reasons or rationale do not have to provide yet more talking points for you to start rebuilding the relationship. We have left everything we wanted to stay on the Metas. Some of us have painstakingly gone out of our way to leave sign posts on how to find everything. Please actually look for it.