2

I realize that similar questions have been asked in masses but I still haven't found an actual answer to my question.

I read this answer:

Look at the bottom of your reputation page, and check the checkbox you find there:

show removed posts checkbox

It at least gave me a clue of what I did wrong (even though I got no notification of the rep loss, I noticed it by chance). However, one of my questions was removed (but there was no link to the question), so I went on and found these questions (among other less popular ones):

  1. Show all of my question/answers to me even if they are deleted
  2. Recent Reputation History Changes

In the first of the above linked questions they speak hypothetically about making it possible to see your own deleted posts and this answer says:

Should this be reconsidered? There are some valid points in Jeff's answer and its comments, but IMO recent changes to SO made this feature request a lot more useful (and less harmful)

Those answers and questions were from mid-2011, and I can't find anywhere that definitively says if this feature is there or not, or if it never will be.

So my questions are:

  1. Shouldn't you be notified when you get reputation loss due to deleted questions under the criteria of the second question linked above?
  2. Is it possible to see your own deleted questions with less than 10k rep? If not, why shouldn't it be?
| improve this question | |
  • For question 2, you cannot see your own deleted questions with less than 10k, and there is a status-declined feature request for it. – nhahtdh Sep 16 '12 at 8:59
  • @nhahtdh Yes, it's the first post i link to. Is the status-declined tag definitive even though there are heavily upvoted posts reasoning the opposite? I see no reasoning of this declining this anywhere in that post. Especially not in Jeff's answer. – Aske B. Sep 16 '12 at 9:05
  • Sorry - I only read your question without reading what you have found. I read the reason somewhere (of course, please take this at face value, I don't trust my memory that much) that low rep user seeing their question being deleted will attract all kinds of complains and whining from them - so whether they can get out of the auto ban or not depends on whether they really try/go to meta to ask for help. – nhahtdh Sep 16 '12 at 9:56
  • @nhahtdh Now I put more than half of my reputation (even though I know it's barely anything) into getting a better answer on that question. I hope that will do something at least. – Aske B. Sep 16 '12 at 10:02
  • There has been 7 bounty added and expired without having any effect on the decision. Yours is the 8th to be added - hope something happens this time. – nhahtdh Sep 16 '12 at 10:27
  • @nhahtdh Yeah, it feels like it doesn't get attention. In cases like these it almost feels like multiple bounties should be allowed. Anyway, I too hope something will happen this time. – Aske B. Sep 16 '12 at 11:55
  • @AskeB., re: your bounty: "First of all, why is this very popular request still declined?" Because popularity is not how SE operates. SE is run by its owners, not what the community wants. They don't want this; it's not going to happen. You wasted 200 MSO rep. – Nicol Bolas Sep 16 '12 at 17:28
  • @NicolBolas Popularity is what should guide SE. Of course the user isn't always right, but in this case, all you're providing is transparency. You're not giving the user privileges of anything but viewing the deleted questions. Also, meta users generally have far more interest in improving the site than SO users, and that makes it more valid imho. And no, I didn't waste any rep. It started something. Awareness and attention always triggers something. Even if no answer is achieved by the 7 days, there'll be more bounties, discussions, I'm sure. It's not much different than the real world. – Aske B. Sep 16 '12 at 21:29
  • @NicolBolas I found a good answer that comes with a good theory of the difference between our views: meta.stackexchange.com/a/16135/193906. In this theory I'd say you're a 'purist', and I'm learning more towards being a 'democractic advocate'. In short, George defines a 'purist' to be someone who favor following the rules that the owners present. A 'democratic advocate' favors to let the community decide. I don't think the community knows best, but I certainly don't think that not giving popular requests a chance (beyond personal judgement from Jeff) is something SE benefits from. – Aske B. Oct 3 '12 at 17:22
  • @AskeB.: I'm neither of those; I'm a realist. I don't think that SE should ignore popular requests by the community as often as they do. But it's a fact that they do. And that's not going to change. As I said in my answer, I don't agree with Jeff, but there's no point in debating him either, since he has final say. Maybe if you keep advocating it, it'll eventually happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath. – Nicol Bolas Oct 3 '12 at 17:43
  • @NicolBolas We're both realists, if by realist you mean that you acknowledge recurring observations and don't trust 'hope' in incredible and unreliable situations. I just choose to still do those things, even if it doesn't result in much else than maybe more publicity on the subject for a short period of time. Even though odds are low, I still believe in taking chances for things you believe in. Of course, this particular issue is nothing more than an "annoyance" to me and it is a more rare issue (since I don't get my posts deleted every other day, and I doubt anyone dedicated to SE does). – Aske B. Oct 3 '12 at 18:24
1

Shouldn't you be notified when you get reputation loss due to deleted questions under the criteria of the second question linked above?

While it's not entirely unreasonable... what's the point?

If it's your question that was deleted, then it was certainly closed before it was deleted. And that requires giving a close reason. So you already know why it was closed, and thus (theoretically) had the opportunity to repair the question.

If it's someone else's question, what does it matter? Yes, it's possible that you might edit the question and improve it, but considering how difficult getting something undeleted is, there's just not much point to doing so.

Is it possible to see your own deleted questions with less than 10k rep? If not, why shouldn't it be?

That's why not. You can disagree with it, you can argue against it. But that's the official SE policy, and it's not going to be changed anytime soon.

Personally, I don't agree with Jeff, but there's no point in debating when Jeff has made up his mind either.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    If the question is deleted before you had a chance to see the close reason and the comments if any (and remember that there is no notification for closing), you don't get any feedback or opportunity to improve the question or take it elsewhere. Sadly many questions are deleted within minutes on Stack Overflow. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Sep 16 '12 at 18:03
  • 1
    @Gilles: I would say that we need a notification for closing, not deleting. As for the issue of deleting questions after only minutes on the site, some questions deserve that. So we can't simply have a policy where a question can't be deleted for some period of time. Most of the questions I've seen that are fast-deleted are those that are unfixable (not without radically altering what they're asking about). – Nicol Bolas Sep 16 '12 at 18:12
  • @NicolBolas The point is not what you get out of it. I could use up this comment's character limit multiples times by listing things this feature would improve of the overall user experience. What I can't do, is find a better reason to not implement this than "it takes time and resources to implement" - but every single implementation have that cost. Seriously, what is the reasoning for not doing it? Don't you think a popular demand deserves at least an explanation? I don't know about you, but "Because I said so" isn't good enough for me in a case like this. – Aske B. Sep 16 '12 at 21:30
  • @AskeB.: Jeff didn't say "because I said so". Jeff said, "Generally when things get deleted, it's for a good reason, and we don't want users to be undeleting them." That's his argument. Whether you agree with it or not, that is his reasoning: deleted things are assumed by default to be irrevocably bad and unwanted. Thus, getting them undeleted is unhelpful. – Nicol Bolas Sep 16 '12 at 23:35
  • @AskeB.: "I could use up this comment's character limit multiples times by listing things this feature would improve of the overall user experience." Go ahead and append it to your question. Personally, I don't see the point. – Nicol Bolas Sep 16 '12 at 23:36
  • @NicolBolas Thanks for the permission... Anyway, we're all different. If you don't see the point after reading the answers in the question, I don't think you'll ever understand before you try desiring to improve but being unable to review your question and responses - or losing an answer that you spend hours at perfecting. I took a peak at your profile and I'll take a wild guess and say you'll never end up in that situation, so I don't see the point in explaining it to you. – Aske B. Sep 17 '12 at 8:05
  • 1
    @NicolBolas That may be his argument, but then he doesn't understand the issue. It doesn't have to do with undeleting. At all. It has to do with being able to view the question/answer(s)/comments that you wrote or received. In general, deleted questions have no value to anyone but the asker. The comments on the question also generally have value only to the asker. The answers can have value to the one who wrote the answer, but also to many other people since it can be a perfectly good answer. If you still don't "see the point", then I'm afraid I don't know how else to explain it. – Aske B. Sep 17 '12 at 8:15
  • perhaps you might want to upvote meta.stackexchange.com/questions/93842/… – Kate Gregory Aug 8 '16 at 23:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .