Timeline for Question deletions are getting out of hand
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 25, 2010 at 20:39 | comment | added | user27414 | @Aarobot - the recent issues surrounding abuse/misuse of the 10K delete tool, including Jeff's recent post of 200 deleted questions, is evidence that the system is not working. Requiring diamond mods to delete popular questions will allow a determination of utility and avoid the pitfalls in the current system. This is the last post I'll write on the matter - I think we've discussed it plenty. | |
| May 25, 2010 at 20:28 | comment | added | Aarobot | Also, to respond to the "keeping people satisfied" issue - the vast majority of users will be satisfied if they get their questions answered. If the highest-rep users - the ones that answer the most questions, and the most effectively - aren't satisfied, then they'll lower their participation, with the net result being fewer/poorer answers and subsequently lower overall satisfaction. That is why they should, must have at least some say in the matter. | |
| May 25, 2010 at 20:26 | comment | added | Aarobot | @Jon: Your idea pretty much ignores everything that's been discussed above. It's simply not a good idea, and rep gain is wholly irrelevant. The popularity of a question on Stack Overflow, and indeed any idea in general, is often inversely proportional to its actual usefulness. Jeff's already made his position clear on this issue; popularity and votes are one mitigating factor but the pivotal criteria is utility. The most experienced (high-rep) users can do a pretty decent job of measuring that. | |
| May 25, 2010 at 14:24 | comment | added | user27414 | As for "not all elected representatives are any good" - are you implying any are good? :) | |
| May 25, 2010 at 14:23 | comment | added | user27414 | @Aarobot - my idea to better moderate? Require diamond mod status to delete popular questions. I agree with your point about the problem of "350 users can't be wrong". CW is a partial solution for that, rep cap is another part. Not perfect, to be sure, but at least it prevents people from rising to the top ranks through nonsense posts. Attracting new users and keeping people satisfied with the site are also critical to SO's success. I think we have a pretty good mix of quality Q&A with fluff (noting that the fluff is quite minimal). | |
| May 25, 2010 at 14:18 | comment | added | Aarobot | @Jon: And as for your point about "not all experts in a field will be good delegates" - not all elected representatives are any good either. Democracies are flawed systems, but they're the best we've got right now. Merit-based delegation is equally flawed but it is part of the system. If you have a better idea on how we can effectively moderate thousands of new questions per day, I'd love to hear it. | |
| May 25, 2010 at 14:16 | comment | added | Aarobot | Bikeshed questions tend to have a gravitational pull; it's a classic example of information cascade, with progressively-increasing answers/upvotes attracting even more of the same because "350 users can't be wrong!" The only situation in which I would consider these to be more than harmful distractions is if they are popular enough to be attracting new users to the trilogy; in that case, I agree that they should be left alone (but locked so that they don't keep getting bumped). | |
| May 25, 2010 at 14:13 | comment | added | Aarobot | @Jon: All of those factors mean the same thing. When questions that are merely entertaining are prioritized over questions that are useful, it devalues Stack Overflow and its content; it takes attention away from real questions and thus takes away exactly what differentiates Stack Overflow - its competitive advantage, so to speak. We're already seeing complaints that it's hard to get more difficult/obscure questions answered, even in popular tags; don't you think that the preponderance of "entertaining" questions attracting massive views might have something to do with that? | |
| May 25, 2010 at 14:08 | comment | added | user27414 | To your second point about delegation: All good delegates will be experts in their field. Not all experts in a field will be good delegates. | |
| May 25, 2010 at 14:07 | comment | added | user27414 | @Aarobot - it's the question votes, the answer votes, the number of answers, the number of views, and the number of favorites. In one way or another, all of these indicate to what extent the community finds a question useful/appropriate/entertaining/etc. I favor closing and even deleting questions for any number of reasons - to a point. Once a question has crossed a certain threshold of community acceptance, the community's view should outweigh that of us 10K users. | |
| May 25, 2010 at 14:05 | comment | added | Aarobot | And @Jon, merit in programming may not be merit in moderating but that's no different from how an actual democratic government handles its delegation. They don't (usually) delegate health and environmental policies to other politicians, they delegate to doctors and scientists knowledgeable in those fields. They still have the final say, of course, just as Jeff and the diamond mods have the final say on SO, but for the most part, governing bodies let the delegates do their jobs without too much interference, as it should be. | |
| May 25, 2010 at 14:02 | comment | added | Aarobot | @Jon: Again with the question votes. Votes don't matter. The most inappropriate questions often get the most votes. Once again, question votes are a stronger indication of how easy or fun a question is than how well-written or useful it is. Most of these questions get an initial swarm of upvotes, views, and answers, but once the novelty wears off, people never read them again. I myself have favorited a few of those questions and never actually gone back. | |
| May 25, 2010 at 13:51 | comment | added | user27414 | @Aarobot - merit in programming is not merit in moderating. Delegation is fine, but with reduced authority. The core of the problem here is that a small group of people are imposing their views on a large group of people, whose will has been made clear. Voting to delete a post with a +85 score is an abuse of power. | |
| May 25, 2010 at 13:45 | comment | added | Aarobot | @Jon: As I said, if you're not satisfied with a literal meritocracy then consider it a form of delegation, from the "real" mods and site admins to the people they've decided to trust on the basis of their perceived knowledge and skill. | |
| May 24, 2010 at 19:25 | comment | added | user27414 | @Aarobot When you upvote someone you are voting on the quality of their question/answer. You are not voting to give them control of what information appears on SO, even though that is a side effect of the voting process. | |
| May 24, 2010 at 19:11 | comment | added | Aarobot | Those "elite" users are de facto elected. If that's not democratic enough for you, then consider that in a representative democracy, governors appoint delegates to do most of the real work, and those delegates are generally chosen based on their knowledge, skill, or past contributions. Sound familiar? | |
| May 24, 2010 at 17:32 | comment | added | Shog9 | Moderators can lock anything they want, if they want to preserve it. | |
| May 24, 2010 at 16:57 | history | answered | user27414 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |