Timeline for Solving the well-wisher ("sympathy commit") problem on Area 51: Investments
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 20, 2016 at 8:38 | comment | added | Pacerier | @Aarobot, You said user150926 is "more than a little silly" (which basically means stupid/idiot) and user150926 said "I will leave you with your insults". At least that's from what I have read. Also, I happen to notice that when you call a post "such utter BS", you're not insulting the post, you're insulting the poster. | |
| S Mar 23, 2013 at 13:23 | history | suggested | Hannele | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
grammar, spelling
|
| Mar 23, 2013 at 13:07 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 23, 2013 at 13:23 | |||||
| Feb 13, 2011 at 18:06 | comment | added | Aarobot | @jalf, I have seen absolutely no logical or verifiable points in this exchange. You and Pierre both ask that we take people's subjective evaluations of their own actions and unreliable memories of their decisions at face value when in fact that's exactly the type of thing psychologists know is unreliable (choice supportive bias). But it's irrelevant in any case; call it "disillusionment" if you want, but what's needed is a system that plans for this and takes it into account, not one that pretends it can solve it (which is 100% impossible). | |
| Feb 13, 2011 at 17:27 | comment | added | jalf | @Aarobot: most of your comments on his answer have been very condescending. You're basically telling him that he's wrong, and that he's lying about why he stopped using a site. And you completely dismiss the actual points he made. If people give up on using the sites because they get disillusioned and disappointed, then you're not changing anything by saying "well dont do that". You need to fix the reasons why the SE users feel that way. | |
| Jan 30, 2011 at 20:38 | comment | added | Aarobot | Funny, I don't see anything in there resembling an insult, and I was frankly trying very hard to be polite. Apparently, responding to an illogical argument with logic is considered an "insult" now. Sorry, not going to indulge you here; passive-aggressive rhetoric is a waste of my time and yours. | |
| Jan 30, 2011 at 19:50 | comment | added | user150926 | @Aarobot: I will leave you with your insults. Good luck with your attempt to change the people. | |
| Jan 30, 2011 at 19:37 | comment | added | Aarobot | Contributors don't even exist until the site is created, which happens after commitment. This system is essentially asking people if they plan to be a contributor or not, and over time, unlike the current system, the proposed system would learn whether or not individuals can actually be trusted to contribute when they say they will. Saying that behaviour modification is "impossible" when it's already worked so well on Stack Overflow and the other Q&A is more than a little silly. Marketing's good too, yes, but it's hardly a panacea, and ultimately Google does the best marketing. | |
| Jan 30, 2011 at 9:39 | comment | added | user150926 | @Aarabot: the modification takes a lot of work of conditioning, and you need real influence & power on the subject. Working on behavior of masses is impossible for that reason. In our case Area51 is just one website over billions with not much influences on the people that matters: the contributors. Without them, the community is useless. That's the problem right? What is needed is marketing. | |
| Jan 30, 2011 at 1:19 | comment | added | Aarobot | All behaviour modification is an exploitation of human nature. Or any animal for that matter. A cat really doesn't care that you want him to sit or follow a pointer, but if he thinks there's a slice of turkey in it for him, he'll do it. If the rep-based system works for Q&A, why do you think it can't work for Area 51? | |
| Jan 30, 2011 at 0:58 | comment | added | user150926 | @Aarobot: IMHO, SEN reputation system is more an exploitation of existing human nature than a attempt to change behaviors ;) | |
| Jan 30, 2011 at 0:20 | comment | added | Aarobot | Why do you think it's impossible to change behaviour? Really the entire Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange system is built around precisely this principle - that with the right incentives, people can be coaxed into doing the right thing. People actually change their behaviour quite readily when given the right motivation. As for the rest - I already addressed your position in my original post; raising the requirements might help a few proposals (or might not), but one thing it would definitely do is hurt the ones that actually have real support. | |
| Jan 29, 2011 at 23:18 | comment | added | user150926 | @Aarobot: I have a general observation: rather than trying to change the user's behavior (you know it's impossible), I think it would be more productive to put all efforts on adapting the Area51 strategy. I'm not an expert, so I'm probably naive when I suggest to increase the number of required commiters to open the private beta. | |
| Jan 29, 2011 at 23:16 | comment | added | user150926 | @Aarobot: It's my theory. Take it or leave it. I hope your appreciate the time I spent to contribute to your question here ;) | |
| Jan 29, 2011 at 22:55 | comment | added | Aarobot | The definition phase should have clearly specified what part would be represented. I'm not sure how you can say that it didn't meet your expectations when there's no evidence of you having tested those expectations. Maybe there's something I'm missing - deleted questions or somesuch - but with all due respect, this sounds more like rationalization after the fact than an objective explanation of what factors were at work. | |
| Jan 29, 2011 at 20:11 | comment | added | user150926 | Aarobot: that's a perfect demonstration of what I was talking about. I was motivated by that proposal, but it did not meet my expectations. Audio is a very large subject, and the part I was interested in is not really represented there. So I lost my interest. Looks like that's the problem we face. We probably need more commiters to avoid that effect. | |
| Jan 29, 2011 at 20:08 | comment | added | Aarobot | I'm also a little frustrated that everybody keeps referring to "sympathy commit". I didn't invent that term, and explicitly called it out as being misleading. It's not necessarily out of sympathy, it's just a question of how "committed" those people really are (often the answer is - not very). Anyway, I think that requiring committers to stake actual reputation would increase the commitment requirements naturally; instead of having members with 100k network rep making huge dents in the progress, they'd chip away at it gradually with the 1k (or whatever) they actually contribute. | |
| Jan 29, 2011 at 20:05 | comment | added | Aarobot | I don't wish to point fingers here, but since you've called out audio.SE, it would seem to me that your one question there (which happens to be a gear recommendation) really fits the definition of a well-wisher rather well. I'm sure - positive, in fact - that you had 100% good intentions, but what's needed is for people to actually step up to the plate and contribute. Cooking.SE had 94 questions on the first day - a lot of them sucked, but the point was that people genuinely had questions they wanted to ask and a group of us worked (hard) to improve the quality over time. | |
| Jan 29, 2011 at 19:50 | history | edited | user150926 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 26 characters in body
|
| Jan 29, 2011 at 19:45 | history | answered | user150926 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |