Timeline for SO and the Wisdom of Crowds
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 16, 2011 at 15:10 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | To the point of the number of people that can see deleted post to correct them. This varies by site. On Stack Overflow there are more than 3600 people with this power, and let us not forget that these people have been voted as very helpful by their peers. | |
| Apr 16, 2011 at 14:14 | comment | added | Tristan | @Pekka ok... :( @Pan Piskvor sure, there is a specific question almost deleted : stackoverflow.com/questions/5660924/… | |
| Apr 16, 2011 at 14:10 | comment | added | Pekka | @Tristan I agree that one is an edge case, and as said, I tend to side with you on it even though the rules may say otherwise - it is an important piece of information, if it had been the jQuery manual it would have stayed open, and I would support changing the rules to include it. But apart from these rare instances, the system works very, very well. Raising the limit of required votes would lead to a lot of stuff that urgently needs closing - not getting closed, leading to an overall drop in quality. | |
| Apr 16, 2011 at 14:06 | comment | added | Piskvor left the building | @Tristan: 'only if the question is not "deleted"' - deleting requires yet another set of voters to agree, plus a cooling-off period (see e.g. this). So far, it has well kept the balance, not allowing delete-on-a-whim, but also keeping the site reasonably clean. btw, is there a specific question suffering by this, or is this just a "what-if" question? | |
| Apr 16, 2011 at 14:04 | comment | added | Tristan | I think you know what I mean Pekka : one of my question has been casted as "not related to software development", though it is obviously related (not a matter of opinion here), but it may not be conformed to some unwritten and commonly accepted rule. | |
| Apr 16, 2011 at 13:58 | comment | added | Pekka | @Tristan I'm not sure I understand what you mean. There is a set of rules about what kind of questions should be closed. Those rules are not defined by the crowd, but by the people running the sites. Voting to close is like saying e.g. "I think this question breaks rule #4". If five people think the same thing, it gets closed. If five people think it does not break rule #4, it gets reopened. It's far from perfect, but it's relatively democratic and works well. | |
| Apr 16, 2011 at 13:56 | comment | added | Tristan | Ok, you are not contradicting what I just wrote : "it is justified selecting a value in a list" | |
| Apr 16, 2011 at 13:54 | comment | added | Pekka | @Tristan yes, but downvoting has nothing to do with voting to close. Voting to close requires five votes. Everyone is free to upvote or downvote whatever they please, without telling why. To cast a close vote, one of the reasons in the list needs to apply. This works pretty well in my experience, there are very few unfair closing decisions. | |
| Apr 16, 2011 at 13:52 | comment | added | Tristan | "The vast majority of close decisions is justified" : For what I can see, it is justified selecting a value in a list, and any people can downvote, without telling why he does so, am I wrong ? "it takes only five votes to revert a closing decision" : sure, but only if the question is not "deleted", and then the large crowd can not act anymore. | |
| Apr 16, 2011 at 13:50 | history | answered | Pekka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |