Timeline for Answering tumbleweed questions - a proposal for attention
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 30, 2015 at 9:15 | comment | added | Pacerier | @Pëkka, Regarding "but those are supposed to get at least some upvotes, at least in theory", In theory, seriously hard questions wouldn't get upvoted, because people write them off without even recognizing them. | |
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Sep 29, 2012 at 2:28 | vote | accept | MPelletier | ||
| Oct 31, 2010 at 20:14 | comment | added | MPelletier | @bemace: I read your posts in reverse. I agree with your proposal. | |
| Oct 31, 2010 at 20:10 | comment | added | MPelletier | @bemace: It's not about not losing great questions. It's about getting an answer for those that really went unnoticed. Weed out the 1-rep questions and the duplicates, and you've got a good-sized pool of unanswered yet potentially answerable questions. Those are the ones I want to put attention on. They might not be the question of the century, but dammit someone wants (and deserves) an answer, and odds are it's not give-me-teh-codez types. | |
| Oct 31, 2010 at 19:54 | comment | added | Brad Mace | Also, those of you that are appauled by losing these 'valuable' questions should look at some of the odata queries on my proposal. The instances of great questions that get no votes, no answers, and no followup from the asker are vanishingly rare. | |
| Oct 31, 2010 at 19:52 | comment | added | Brad Mace | There may be room for both proposals, as there are a lot of unanswered questions. The majority are garbage (duplicates, horribly written, lacking info, etc) and we'd be better off without them. Even if we lost a small number of decent questions it would be worth it to flush out the junk. As I said, the good ones can be re-asked. But once the garbage is cleared out, upping the reward on what's left seems reasonable. Perhaps "good" could be defined as something like score >= 3 and/or asker's rep >= 100? | |
| Oct 31, 2010 at 19:16 | comment | added | Andreas Bonini | So not only stackoverflow "failed" the user by not having their question answered, but now the poor user's question is even deleted? The proposal in the OP makes much more sense since it helps getting those questions actually answered. | |
| Oct 31, 2010 at 17:55 | comment | added | MPelletier | Why IS there a tumbleweed badge to begin with, if not to bring attention (or provide a "balm") to the poor chap who's questions went ignored, and by it bring attention to the question? If this is the case, then the badge fails, because (through sheer number?) attention is not given. | |
| Oct 31, 2010 at 17:52 | comment | added | Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE | @Jeff - sorry, I meant delete, indeed. Even after 120 days, why? Let people choose to close, not algorithms which can only guess if a question is "fundamentally wrong". | |
| Oct 31, 2010 at 17:49 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @mark we'd delete them, not close them. I am thinking after 120 days. | |
| Oct 31, 2010 at 17:46 | comment | added | Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE | @Jeff - sorry, disagree. I had a Tumbleweed question that got answered and another that wasn't, mainly because the subject matter (MediaWiki) is less well know than, e.g. C++. But when they get answered, even after a long time, I check it out and am usually pleased with the answer. So please don't close my questions! | |
| Oct 31, 2010 at 17:34 | comment | added | MPelletier | Or that it was posted at a low activity moment (say Friday afternoon) and fell off everybody's radar. | |
| Oct 31, 2010 at 17:23 | comment | added | Pekka | @waiwai all the more reason to upvote well-put but tough questions. | |
| Oct 31, 2010 at 17:23 | comment | added | waiwai933 | Except, in practice, they often aren't upvoted. I don't mind too much if the question has a negative score, but 0 is a different case. @Pekka | |
| Oct 31, 2010 at 17:22 | comment | added | Pekka | @waiwai but those are supposed to get at least some upvotes, at least in theory. +1, deletion sounds like a good idea | |
| Oct 31, 2010 at 17:20 | comment | added | waiwai933 | Or that it is an extraordinarily difficult question to answer. | |
| Oct 31, 2010 at 17:20 | history | answered | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 2.5 |