With regards to this question.

can jsoup implement compareDocumentPosition?

As in org.w3c.dom Node...

Is there any way of simulating this in Jsoup that anyone knows of?

For some reason I have got "does not meet quality standards" with the above text. I can't think what to add...


wow some eejit just down-voted this question... but it's a perfectly good question... far far better no doubt than most of the qus posted by the eejit in question! Takes all sorts!!!

And the comments...

Ok, well you're getting a downvote from me too - Please at least try to provide some information. The reason it doesn't meet quality standards is that your question is so short, it provides no detail of what you're trying to achieve. Also, you should use correct english "eejit" "qus" etc... Finally, there's no need to call anyone an idiot in the first place. – Basic 7 hours ago

@Basic get you! org.w3c.dom is enough to tell anyone familiar with Java all they need to know here... if a package as well known as org.w3c.dom feels that it is useful to compare 2 Nodes relative positions then you can be sure it would be useful in Jsoup. If you don't understand you shouldn't be answering the question... indubitably what makes you a bit of an eejit too, IMHO – mike rodent 7 hours ago

You'll note I commented, not answered and I was attempting to explain why someone else might've downvoted you (and why I did). If you don't like my reasons, well that's just unfortunate. – Basic 7 hours ago

I've flagged it for moderator attention as I don't personally believe it's good quality (or that the tone is appropriate). The flag has been under review for quite some time (> 7 hours) so I assume nobody really knows what to do with it.

I've avoided commenting further as I don't want to start an argument. What's the appropriate response to situations like this? I personally feel the question is needlessly "conversational" and that the OP is being argumentative for the sake of it. It certainly doesn't seem to be the usual high quality of question I normally find on SO, but the lack of response to the flag makes me wonder if I'm wrong?

  • 9
    I usually just ignore those and move on... No point in sweating over it. If someone wants to help the OP, they will. – Mysticial Sep 21 '12 at 21:14

No, you weren't wrong to have flagged it and stopped replying. In fact, that was the best way out.

We just happen to have an immense backlog of flags to handle, unfortunately for a site the size of ours, so flags can sometimes get lost in the sea for hours or even days. Sorry about that!

I'd like to note that how you flag should depend on what (you feel) needs our attention the most. Here, there were two main issues:

  • The question was low quality
  • The OP was being a prick

More often than not, poor question quality, which is often handled by community members through edits, downvotes and close votes, isn't as severe an issue as hostile behavior. As such, we prioritize different types of flags differently. If somebody is being argumentative, you can ensure a quick response to a flag by specifically pointing us to that particular behavior.

Judging from your question and your flag, it seems you were flagging this question more for its poor quality than its asker being argumentative. That could have contributed to the lack of response as it was being pushed back in the moderation queue (not physically, but in terms of our priorities). If somebody is acting out or being abusive, the best way to ensure quick moderator intervention is to specifically call out that behavior in your flag, so we know at a glance that this particular post needs immediate attention.

In typical cases like this where a user is being aggressive in comments, one can either:

  • Flag their comments as rude/offensive; or
  • Raise a custom flag on their question, telling us that they're being abusive

Of course, if you're still in doubt, you can always ask on meta, as you've done here.

Anyway, I've gotten rid of the comments. They didn't need to be there. Once again, apologies for the delayed response.

  • Thank you for the clarification. I'd assumed that by flagging for the less argumentative reason (Low quality), I would be demonstrating that I wasn't treating this matter as personal and thus would be more "balanced" in my flagging. No need to apologise at all - I completely understand that you've got a mountain of work and thanks for your intervention – Basic Sep 21 '12 at 21:54
  • 1
    @Basic That's the catch. Flagging "not personal" and more balanced means a lower priority flag in such cases. – Daniel Fischer Sep 21 '12 at 22:17

When I see questions like that, I quietly move on, or leave a brief note on how I think a question can be improved. If the OP is willing to listen to your advise, he would improve the question to the point when it is answerable; otherwise, the chances are that he would misunderstand your answer as well.

In this case, I would ask for more context, and explain what would be useful to know before answering the question.

If the conversation gets into the abusive territory, I flag for a moderator, and stop replying: once the user starts calling people words, there is absolutely no point in continuing the conversation, unless you are a moderator.

So to answer your question, you were absolutely right when you flagged, but you could in addition skip your last comment: that would save you some typing.

  • Thanks. I probably shouldn't have commented back - I was feeling a little riled (nobody likes to be called an idiot) but was trying to walk the line between what I felt like saying and what I should say for the purposes of being polite on SO. – Basic Sep 21 '12 at 21:56

You must log in to answer this question.

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