Timeline for What about allowing users to opt-in to new/experimental/beta changes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 2011 at 20:21 | history | edited | Pekka | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 123 characters in body
|
| Mar 11, 2011 at 18:10 | comment | added | Pekka | @ktrauberman I see what you mean, but I'm not sure it's necessary even for that. Calmly going to Meta, registering one's disagreement, and seeing what happens would be the ideal course of action IMO. Nobody was seriously impaired in their ability to use the site by this. However, it has to be said that the immense tension in the other thread is surely also caused by past experiences when Jeff completely ignored the people's voice and stuck with an unpopular decision. | |
| Mar 11, 2011 at 18:05 | comment | added | Kyle Trauberman | I'm not suggesting this for small, insignificant changes (e.g. algorithm changes, rep recalcs, etc.), but more so for significant changes impacting the UI like the envelope change. | |
| Mar 11, 2011 at 17:54 | comment | added | ire_and_curses | -1: I think you're missing the point. It's not a question of functional impairment (although actually, what I've seen here on meta indicates this particular change is annoying and impairing). It's about showing your users some respect. It's very simple. Huge changes like this should be explained in advance. What is the benefit of antagonising so many users? The same thing happened just recently with the rep recalc. It's stupid. | |
| Mar 11, 2011 at 17:50 | history | edited | Pekka | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 160 characters in body; added 122 characters in body; added 32 characters in body; added 9 characters in body; deleted 4 characters in body; deleted 2 characters in body; added 26 characters in body; added 1 characters in body
|
| Mar 11, 2011 at 17:43 | history | answered | Pekka | CC BY-SA 2.5 |