Timeline for What’s on your mind?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 12 at 18:18 | history | edited | M-- | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Dec 11 at 19:40 | comment | added | Slate StaffMod | @VLAZ Oh yeah. The implementation was not expensive or long-running. But viewed as a more comprehensive process, deploying changes is more than "write code" - it's all the discussion and coordination around it. Including a public response explaining what changed, which you point out was delayed, lol. At any rate, it's sort of a side point, I don't mean to detract too much from the meat of your post | |
| Dec 11 at 19:16 | comment | added | VLAZ |
And confusion did happen. People were questioning what the asterisk was. I questioned it. And I was already running the same thing: Vote links looked like this for me: Close (1*)* but there was no indication why. We had a question on MSO about what the asterisk is almost immediately. It took four hours for an official response. Which also doubled as the announcement.
|
|
| Dec 11 at 19:16 | comment | added | VLAZ |
@Slate I understand design takes time. But the implementation? It just feels cheap. Because I know it was. This was the userstyle I had. It...adds an asterisk. Next to the voting button. Like this Close (1)*. Instead of inside the braces like it was implemented on the site Close (1*). Sprint 2 especially had copy edits and configuration tweaks. Again - good it was done. And sure, each was probably discussed. But this could have been done years ago. Over morning/afternoon coffees.
|
|
| Dec 11 at 18:58 | comment | added | Slate StaffMod | (Incidentally, I find it a bit funny that you say "I know it cannot have taken long to just add an asterisk to maybe few places." - I was in the room for these discussions, and it actually took quite a lot longer than you might expect. While we know experienced users are fairly likely to get this intuitively, were all users? Would an alternative design help them? What else do we need to do, if anything, to keep it clear? I get it sounds like bikeshedding, but if you serve a million users, confusing just 1% confuses 10,000 people. Actually making the change was the easy part.) | |
| Dec 11 at 18:54 | comment | added | Slate StaffMod | But "believable" in this case is divorced from what the people who develop the feature intend. There's a reflex: imagine how it can go wrong, assume that will happen, state it will fail. Post-hoc, if something doesn't go quite right, chances are good someone will have proposed it as a failure mode at some point (typically quite hyperbolically so). Very rarely do I see people discuss why one might want it, or really benefit from it. It's not required (doesn't bother me), but its absence is notable. I don't think it can be explained merely by "the ideas are bad." There's something more there. | |
| Dec 11 at 18:49 | comment | added | Slate StaffMod | I'm still thinking about this one, probably I'll have more questions with time. But one line stands out to me. "Now any time something is announced, I can only imagine how badly it could fail or how it would be misapplied, how it would be mishandled." It's sticking in my brain because I think it's something we've run into a lot. When ideas have genuine merit, and they're shared with the community, we do get a lot of that back. For now I'm mostly interested in the effect it has, not its internal merit: Ideas, even good-faith ideas, are often seen in their worst believable light. | |
| Dec 11 at 18:33 | comment | added | Zoe - Save the data dump | "can we have another fix for a years old thing that would take you 30 minutes" - "no, we have fixes at home" - the fixes at home: i.sstatic.net/gDYjjrIz.png | |
| Dec 11 at 18:01 | history | edited | starball | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Dec 11 at 17:27 | history | answered | VLAZ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
