-18

Preface: I am posting this here as an adjunct to a post I just made on the meta site for “Science Fiction and Fantasy.” My post here will be far shorter and more “high level” since what I ask there is about a communication need and what I am asking here is for the proper tools to potentially sate such a communication need.

Let’s make the functional/usage differences between core SE sites and smaller SE sites more obvious to casual users.

Given that many of the smaller Stack Exchange sites have different cultures and given that many of the smaller Stack Exchange sites use the tools of the system to different degrees, would it at all be possible for there to be some very obvious and clear feature available to all sites that acts as a “Here is what we do differently from Stack Overflow…” page/guide.

I—like many others—discovered Stack Exchange via Stack Overflow and realize that is the main site and many of the tools available to all sites stem from them being “battle tested” on Stack Overflow. Utterly reasonable and pragmatic approach to feature integration.

That said, many of the small Stack Exchange sites simple use the tools available in ways that are counter-intuitive to anyone used to the way the main Stack Exchange sites work. For example, on the “Science Fiction and Fantasy” site, comments often have a much longer—and well respected—life than they have elsewhere across the Stack Exchange network. Expanding the comment management system functionality is truly a can of worms that I don’t believe anyone should touch with a gajillion foot pole. But I still think some way of conveying high-level usage/site-culture differences like this is necessary to the overall health of the community.

That said it would be nice for casual users—such as me—to have one canonical page/guide/welcome that states something along the lines of:

Welcome to this site! While you might be familiar with Stack Overflow, this site works like other Stack Exchange sites but with a few differences we find work best for our culture.

Link some icon or menu thing on the top of each page to that page and… Done! A quick way to understand why a site might be different from core Stack Exchange sites.

Now I am using “Science Fiction and Fantasy” as my example here but I can easily see this being useful for some of the other, smaller, more focused Stack Exchange sites.

To my mind, the overall user experience is visually and functionally so similar across all of the sites that when differences appear in basic tool usage, it leads to confusion and potential conflict. Instead of relying on the community to constantly letting users know about “unwritten rules” of usage, why not just be transparent and clear about these differences from the beginning with some very clear and site-moderator manageable tool that allows them to summarize these differences.

It seems that simple functionality like this would be a big plus to the smaller sites as well as the casual users who just want to participate lightly without finding out that “ZOMG! I don’t believe you said/did since we are not like Stack Overflow so don’t think this thing is treated this way!”

I believe being very clear about these differences will lead to better content from casual users which benefits everyone in the long run. If the barrier of entry to a smaller community is risking stepping on tripwires casual user’s don’t know exist, it will simply alienate them from even casual interaction.


NOTE/UPDATE: I have discovered—for example of one site—the “tour” page for the “Science Fiction and Fantasy” site thanks to a comment, but honestly this is not obvious, you have to hunt for it and I dare anyone to look at the “tour” content for “Science Fiction and Fantasy” and find anything past superficial, bureaucratic “glad handing.” A page like that with the wording it has and it’s non-prominent placement comes off as some kind of a disposable afterthought; reminds me of a pamphlet that comes with a set of headphones that gets discarded after you open the package. I doubt most users ever see or read that “tour” content. Perhaps the “tour” page simply needs to be made more prominent and clearly address some deeper site-specific differences? Like I said, I embrace the idea there are differences. But they really need to be made clearer and at a high level in many cases.

And look at the tour page text for the “Science Fiction and Fantasy” site; the broad statement is that “Science Fiction and Fantasy” is not a “discussion forum” and “there’s no chit-chat.” Really? Is that really accurate to what a smaller site like “Science Fiction and Fantasy” is?

This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat.

Screenshot of the “Science Fiction and Fantasy” tour page.

  • 3
    There's enough problems dealing with people that aren't familiar with SE's model at all already, I don't see why we need something specifically for SO users that are supposed to know the basics already. Before you barge in an a site (SE or not), look around to get a fell of the place. Works just fine. – Mat Jan 3 '16 at 19:42
  • 1
    @Mat Your attitude is the exact reason I believe a simple, true summary that truly addresses the practical cultural differences are needed. The people who don’t pay attention will never pay attention. But there are people who do pay attention, do respect the SE sites but simply don’t need to get into a deep relationship for every post/comment. – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 19:45
  • 4
    @JakeGould: I care quite a bit about this network, I think it's great. I've used a few of its sites (actively or passively), and so far have gotten along quite well by following that very simple "way of life": look at how things are done before barging in. Read the help page. Browse meta. As you say, people who don't care won't do any of that or read a 1 page summary. Those who do don't need it, they have enough respect to get a feel of the place before coming in with their SO habits. – Mat Jan 3 '16 at 19:48
  • 2
    Who would write this summary? It would have to be a person with intimate knowledge of both sites' cultures. There's also a lot of variance within Stack Overflow, since it's so big: the way people answer, comment, and close in [tagA] is noticeably different than in [tagB]; there may not be a "reference practice" on SO that can be pointed out. – Josh Caswell Jan 3 '16 at 19:50
  • 2
    @Mat “…look at how things are done before barging in.” Your “barging in’ comment speaks volumes towards your closed mindedness. So someone on Stack Overflow who comes to Science Fiction and Fantasy who then wants to post a simple question or comment and inadvertently “steps on toes” deserves to be treated like a sub-capable community member? It happens to others… Not just me. Just asking to make a nicer welcome mat to appreciate the differences. – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 19:51
  • 5
    @JakeGould: Looks like you've had a bad time on SS&F, sorry to hear about it. But don't generalize that one experience. It doesn't match mine at all on any site I've participated on. (BTW: I'm not attacking you , just stating my opinion that this is a waste of time. Don't be so defensive.) – Mat Jan 3 '16 at 19:54
  • 4
    I contest the claim that the Tour and Help Center are hard to find and not useful. Additionally, the mods modify the tour pages, with input from the community. – HDE 226868 Jan 3 '16 at 19:55
  • 5
    The tour page seems like it's meant for new-to-SE users, @JakeGould. If it's meant for cross-site introduction, I agree that it is not successful. It's the same page -- with per-site styling -- for every site. Compare SO's tour: stackoverflow.com/tour – Josh Caswell Jan 3 '16 at 19:56
  • 2
    Asstated in my post to the meta post I made on Science Fiction and Fantasy, the gestation of these questions came after my own decision to eliminate my active participation on this—and other—non-core Stack Exchange sites. If the reality is the “hive mind” has decided a simple method of explaining cross-site differences is not worth the effort, I guess my decision to abandon aspects of participation in the network was right. I’ll still be active in some way on Stack Overflow and Super User, but past that the smaller sites need true guidance. – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 20:05
  • 3
    @gnat: there's also the fact that he's not clear on what kinds of problems he's talking about. He mentions different culture, but he doesn't explain how that manifests across different sites. Nor does he explain why those differences would be problematic for different people. – Nicol Bolas Jan 3 '16 at 21:30
  • 2
    @gnat: I didn't ask for the differences for every site. But he speaks about the problem in such a nebulous way that, unless you have personally experienced it, you have no idea what he's talking about. A couple of concrete examples, particularly ones that create problems for casual users, would be a good start. – Nicol Bolas Jan 3 '16 at 21:35
  • 3
    +1; I agree with your thoughts here, although I doubt anybody's going to implement this in the foreseeable future. One thing that deserves a mention (I haven't read all the comments to see if it's already been mentioned) is chat. If I want to join a new SE site and post a question, without having a clear idea of whether it'd be on-topic, I'll probably drop into the site's chatroom to get a few tips from the regulars. – Rand al'Thor Jan 3 '16 at 21:40
  • 2
    @JakeGould: "I clearly have explained the issue with comments being far more permanent on “Science Fiction and Fantasy” compared to the core sites." No, you explained that fact. What you didn't explain is how this fact represents something which can "alienate [casual users] from even casual interaction". I simply do not see the connection between comments being more permanent and how that leads to alienation. – Nicol Bolas Jan 3 '16 at 21:42
  • 2
    @randal'thor: "If I want to join a new SE site and post a question, without having a clear idea of whether it'd be on-topic, I'll probably drop into the site's chatroom to get a few tips from the regulars." Are people really that terrified of downvotes that they feel the need to go to chat of all places before asking a question? – Nicol Bolas Jan 3 '16 at 21:43
  • 4
    I can't possibly object to the idea of a more involved introduction to a site's practices and use of SE tools (although I wonder how often it would be read). It's really just what I said in my first comment: "X.SE differs from SO in the following ways" that I find unlikely to work or help. What about someone who started using SE on Physics, for example, and then got an account on Ask Different? – Josh Caswell Jan 3 '16 at 22:18
10

The system seems to be intentionally designed to let visitors at smaller sites drop anything into question / answer text box, without even hinting them that there are Tour and Help Center pages.

I accidentally discovered this at other smaller site and it was explained as follows:

On the smaller sites... since they get less traffic than Stack Overflow, there's not as much of a disincentive to prevent people from posting, since the community can help users fix problems with their posts, or close, flag, and delete...

This seems to be a really old policy. Back then, when it was established, common belief seemed to be that these matters will fix themselves after site grows, and it was assumed that every site will eventually grow (“Science Fiction and Fantasy” getting 8,000 questions a day like Stack Overflow, can you imagine).

Of smaller sites, only Server Fault managed to get "an interstitial page" to help newcomers - possibly because they complained loud enough about missing such a guidance.

  • 1
    “Back then, when it was established, common belief seemed to be that these matters will fix themselves after site grows…” EXACTLY! The tools as stand are built on the concept that the scalability will solve issues when more users come to a site. When in reality smaller sites will never really grow and if they do… All great! But you can’t expect something like a proposed “Literature” site to grow like crazy. And—for example—I fear that if/when a “Literature” SE site is created it will fall prey to the same small scale flaws others small scale SE sites experience. – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 20:11
  • 3
    @JakeGould worth noting that their old belief is now officially debunked: 'Past experience had led us to believe that “small” and “unhealthy” would mean the same thing: we took it as a given that quiet sites would develop spam and obvious broken windows, while high quality sites would always grow big and graduate. But you proved us wrong! Five years later, we have lots of tiny sites which have been in public beta for months or years, each consistently producing excellent Q&A which helps people with real problems...' – gnat Jan 3 '16 at 20:21
  • 2
    @gnat Fair enough, but still. 150+ sites using the same tools in different, unclear and non-obvious ways is not a healthy way to foster casual interaction. I believe ways of explaining the differences is needed from a basic common sense perspective. – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 20:24
  • @JakeGould that's a good point. Note that official confirmation that it's okay for site to stay small is really recent, posted less than half year ago. Lots of current features seem to be inherited from times when belief was opposite, 'that “small” and “unhealthy” would mean the same thing' – gnat Jan 3 '16 at 20:31
  • 1
    @gnat: I'm not quite sure I get it. Do you think adding guidance specifically targeted to people already familiar with SO would help smaller sites much? (I'm not disputing anything you said above.) – Mat Jan 3 '16 at 20:37
  • @Mat hard to tell. Would be interesting to learn from experience of SF folks who have got their interstitial page a while ago. Thing that worries me most is that current way seems to be based on assumption that was proven wrong ("every healthy site will eventually grow and this will fix things") – gnat Jan 3 '16 at 20:44
  • 2
    @Jake Oh, don't worry, I don't actually disagree with you. I might if I'd read your post, but I'm too distracted by your abuse of formatting to do so properly. Perhaps I might be pleasured with the opportunity to disagree with your "core premise" if you'd stop treating a post formatting suggestion as a personal attack and fix your unreadable text. – bjb568 Jan 3 '16 at 21:10
  • @bjb568 And if I removed the bold I would be asked to clarify what I am trying to say because it’s too wordy. The psychology of “negging” is fairly amazing. Hey, the down votes are speaking. The reality is this discussion will most likely lead to absolutely nothing even if it was written in fine calligraphy with gold leaf on fancy parchment and won graphic design awards. Generally the community seems to believe there’s no room to improve a system and acknowledge the needs of growth. Who am I to say anything? Who is anyone else who has also thrown up their hands in frustration to say anything? – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 21:19
  • @JakeGould removing all the bold would be bad idea, for example, this part appears to be bolded appropriately, it really helps readers to see the point: "Let’s make the functional/usage differences between core SE sites and smaller SE sites more obvious to casual users." There are one or two other places where I would keep bold no matter how others complain – gnat Jan 3 '16 at 21:23
  • @gnat Okay, I just edited to lessen the bold and it seems better to me. Main premise, four other key bold points. Looks better and everyone is happy right? – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 21:27
  • 2
    @JakeGould yes, looks better to me. I'd also drop bold of the "I can easily see this being useful for some of the other, smaller, more focused Stack Exchange sites" – gnat Jan 3 '16 at 21:31
  • @gnat Fair enough. – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 21:42
  • @bjb568 Bold issues have been fixed as much as they will be fixed. Hopefully you can now read this to understand the positive place this is coming from now? – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 21:47
6

My method

Here's what I do when I want to learn about a community's culture:

  1. I read the tour.
  2. I go through the help center.
  3. I look through the site meta.
  4. I go to the main chat room and ask any questions about the site there.
  5. I watch the posts on the site and wait before posting.

Right there, you have five different places to go to learn about a site. I've explored and joined 30 sites across the network - including Science Fiction & Fantasy - and this strategy has yet to fail me.


Addressing the specific point about the tour:

  • Moderators edit it, typically with community input.
  • It's designed as an introduction for folks new to Stack Exchange, but it shouldn't be the only place you visit when joining a site.
  • The "help" button is located on the top bar, and the drop-down menu leads you to the tour. If you've seen the tour on one site, you should know to look for it on others.

Are there ways we could improve the experience for a user new to Stack Exchange? Yes. Are there ways we could improve the experience for a user new to a Stack Exchange site? Yes. But I don't think this is a problem we need to deal with at the moment.

  • “But I don't think this is as big a problem as you claim.” I never stated it was a big problem, but it is definitely a bit UX issue. – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 20:08
  • 2
    @JakeGould I think it's pretty implicit that you think this is a big issue. – HDE 226868 Jan 3 '16 at 20:09
  • “I think it's pretty implicit that you think this is a big issue.” I think it’s an issue. Now please let the straw man go home already. – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 20:11
  • 2
    @JakeGould You've certainly acted like it is one. Anyway, I'm just saying that it's not a problem that we need to deal with right now. – HDE 226868 Jan 3 '16 at 20:39
  • 2
    @JakeGould: It's big enough for you to make two rather large posts across two websites for it. You even claimed that you considered it an "exit interview" for SF&F. Perhaps we have different ideas of what something is worth. But if you're willing to put all of that text behind it, then it seems clear to me that you think it's a significant issue. – Nicol Bolas Jan 3 '16 at 21:26
  • @NicolBolas In general all of my posts are wordy. So are my emails. So is my documentation. So focusing on the length of these post as being unique is a canard at best. This is how I casually type and interact with text most anywhere. – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 21:29
  • 3
    @JakeGould Then I think perhaps this may have caused some confusion in general interpretation of your post. It certainly swayed my reading of it a bit. – HDE 226868 Jan 3 '16 at 21:34
  • @HDE226868 Perhaps. But that was your judgement, not mine. And to me it’s an odd judgement to make. – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 21:40
  • @JakeGould Oh, yes, it was definitely my bad. I was simply thinking about meta posts I've seen before. But yes, it was not your error. – HDE 226868 Jan 3 '16 at 21:41
  • 1
    @HDE226868 Thank you. Also, my desire to link to the “Science Fiction and Fantasy” meta post was simply to be clear and transparent about where I have discussed this. Nothing more, nothing less. I’ve been n Stack Exchange long enough to know that if I don’t act with transparency and full detail in questions and answers it will haunt me in the comments when requests for clarification are made. No disrespect, but even the comments here now that annoy me are still welcome to me. At least they don’t ask me to endlessly revise my question to be more clear. All good and thank you for your thoughts. – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 21:51
  • 2
    @JakeGould Good to have yours, too. I hope this leads to improvements for a new user's experience, in some way. – HDE 226868 Jan 3 '16 at 21:53
3

There are no functional and usages differences between Stack Exchange sites. The great part is that the functional equivalence between all sites makes the transition from one community driven and moderated site to another much easier, once you discovered these and have the need or urgency to do so.

It really doesn't matter how much more text and guidance you put in front of people to make them aware of how one community is different from the other. Users that are used to one of the many forums are trained to ignore everything because they have one goal, get their own question answered. They do get extra guidance before they can post a question. That is happily ignored, I assume everywhere, not only on Stack Overflow.

I don't know how many users re-visit the tour or the help center if they switch between communities but their posts will still go through the same moderation functionality as on any other site. So there is enough in place already to direct users into the correct direction.

Rules for a community are by definition fluid. They change over time. Have a look at the early crap broad/resource request questions at Stack Overflow. So to have something extras like you propose would need updating and adaption at a regular basis.

What is needed is a healthy community with enough members that are up to the task to moderate their community and have a healthy discussion about the site goal and evolution on the site meta. That will distill a common denominator that can server as initial guidance, either in the help center or in the tour.

I don't think sites need something extra because I don't understand which usergroup you want to address. There doesn't seem to be a lot of cross-over and those that do should pick-up quickly.

I do think (new) users might need less complicated texts but above all sites need members that are willing to invest a little bit more (reading) time in a community to serve others instead of their own needs. New users that are not open for information about the site culture, on-topic-ness, habits and moderation are maybe better directed to other, less moderated, sites like Reddit and Quora.

  • 1
    “I don't think sites need something extra.” And what if what exists—like the “tour” and “help” pages—simply don”t work and are ignored and only trotted out bureaucratically when someone sates, “See! We state this!” Why not have better UX and be proactive about differences. They clearly exist but you only find out about them when you run afoul of them on a seemingly arbitrary basis. – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 20:07
  • 3
    I suggest you go hunt for the evidence first that it doesn't work. I don't believe your proposed solution will fix anything, if there is anything that needs fixing in the first place – rene Jan 3 '16 at 20:12
  • 1
    Your first comment to me was, Abuse of BOLD should be condemned everywhere.” I have been bolding things like this for a while. Nobody complains. But suddenly when I post items that people disagree with, I get superficially called out on a personal style issue. To me your unbolded wall of text here is actually unreadable. No idea what your key point is past, “I don't think sites need something extra.” – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 20:23
2

Instead of relying on the community to constantly letting users know about “unwritten rules” of usage, why not just be transparent and clear about these differences from the beginning with some very clear and site-moderator manageable tool that allows them to summarize these differences.

Because... we don't know what they are.

It's not like each site got out the Stack Exchange rulebook and started adding rules and crossing out ones they didn't like. Culture is usually very informal. It is also always in flux.

Equally importantly, different people have different ideas about what the culture of a site actually is. Some people may not agree with what other people think the cultural norms are. Maybe some users on SF&F want comments to be less "permanent" than others do. Even moderators on Stack Overflow disagree sometimes about what is good and what is not.

So who gets to decide what the codified cultural rules for a site are? Should there be some formal referendum processes? Is it just moderators deciding for themselves and presenting a document?

Either way, this sounds disturbingly like culture police. Majority rules, insofar as culture usually works. But I'd hate to see the majority's culture becoming a fixed document who's very presence wards off users who don't agree with various cultural norms.

And giving such power to moderators is basically electing them as the culture police. Yes, on some level, the moderators of a site help create and enforce particular standards. But at the same time, it's all very informal, and therefore subject to change without having some formal process.

Codifying something nebulous like site culture into some list of rules is just not a good idea. It's too rigid and inflexible.

  • 1
    You still miss the point. A lot of the cultural issues are known and discussed in the meta discussion of a site. All I am saying is there be some nice, simple way to state something like, “Unlike other sites, we place high value on comments and their longevity.” That’s it. I’m not asking for a new mindset past being explicitly clear about this stuff from the outset. Something as simple as stating “This site is less question and answer and more, question, answer, comment discussion.” is not a radical idea. – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 21:56
  • 2
    @JakeGould: "This site is less question and answer and more, question, answer, comment discussion." I would say that any site that finds a need to say that should not be an SE site! Either that, or such moderators should be removed and replaced with ones who know how SE's actually supposed to work. We aren't making forums here. – Nicol Bolas Jan 3 '16 at 21:59
  • @JakeGould: "Unlike other sites, we place high value on comments and their longevity." In what way would that warning change how someone interacts on the site? – Nicol Bolas Jan 3 '16 at 22:00
  • 1
    Well, I hate to break the news to you… But what you are describing is 100% exactly how the “Science Fiction and Fantasy” site works; comments are given high value/retention. Which is why I—for example—believe I and others have inadvertently rubbed people the wrong way on that site despite no malice from our actions. Please read my meta post on “Science Fiction and Fantasy” to understand what I mean. – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 22:02
  • “In what way would that warning change how someone interacts on the site?” It would prevent people from assuming something that is accepted behavior towards comments on one Stack Exchange site is somehow accepted behavior on that specific site. If the general theory of Stack Exchange is comments are disposable and a smaller SE site defies that concept, new users should be told about this. Simple as placing a traffic sign on a road warning of a bump in the road; you’ll still hit a bump but you know it’s coming. – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 22:04
  • @JakeGould: That doesn't explain how someone would change their own behavior. If I consider comments disposable on a site that does not... what behavior would I change? A person who considers comments to be disposable would not do anything different because they don't make comments often. They use comments solely to improve questions/answers, not for discussion. So what problems will they encounter? – Nicol Bolas Jan 3 '16 at 22:06
  • Nicol, like I said it’s better someone knows before they jump into something what they are jumping into. That’s all. You are asking for specifics when all I am asking for is a simple, normal, common sense and human “heads up.” – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 22:08
  • I have no idea where your anger is coming from here. My question and feature request is simple. Simply stating a basic thing I believe might help human interaction. If you disagree, please down vote. Past that you can’t change my mind on this. And again, when you state, “We aren't making forums here.” seriously… Read my meta post and follow the links. Some of the smaller sites use comments as forums and this is not what most people expect a Stack Exchange site to be. All I ask is that use of the system be clear from the outset. – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 22:22
  • This is, to my mind, the right answer. Describing your own culture, from the inside, to an outsider, without a point of reference, requires an uncommon, not to say uncanny, degree of insight and communication ability, and I don't believe there is any such point of reference available. – Josh Caswell Jan 3 '16 at 22:25
  • 1
    @JoshCaswell This answer over expands a point I just mentioned in passing. The core issue is Stack Exchange is question and answer site to most of the world. The use of comments as extended dialogue on some sites is simply confusing. But comments are needed and should be considered disposable by the overall network. So how can one properly balance comments being used in a way they were not intended to or expected to? – JakeGould Jan 3 '16 at 22:32
  • 2
    I'd like to quickly point out that, while I think this question and this answer work perfectly fine in the hypothetical sense, I want to clarify that SF&F absolutely has no such "comment policy", official or otherwise. We treat comments with the same level of transience and disposability as any other SE site I've been on - used to improve question/answers, flagged for deletion when they get out of control, etc. – KutuluMike Jan 3 '16 at 23:04
  • 2
    Im my opinion, the comment policy on all stack sites is enforced arbitrarily. In theory, they are entirely disposable and should serve only to improve the posts. In practice, I see no discernible logic behind which of my own off-topic or irrelevant comments on SO are allowed to stay and which are deleted, other than "when they bother someone and get flagged, they go away." The only difference is that SO has orders of magnitude more users, so the odds of someone seeing and flagging rises dramatically. – KutuluMike Jan 3 '16 at 23:21
  • 3
    Which I think may really be the crux of what you're seeing. The policies are no different on the smaller sites than the big three, but the volume of people actively working to enforce them is much, much, much different. With thousands and thousands of active high-rep users on SO, even if hundreds of those people pay no attention to bad comments someone will object and flag them. With a couple dozen active people at that level of SF&F, if 5 or 6 of us just don't notice, there is an appearance that they are being "allowed to stay." – KutuluMike Jan 3 '16 at 23:24
  • 1
    @MikeEdenfield “The policies are no different on the smaller sites than the big three, but the volume of people actively working to enforce them is much, much, much different.” Perhaps you hit the nail on the head. But of course it then seems self-evident that the larger sites have a natural “churn” of comment removal at a faster rate due to higher volume than the smaller sites. And as such that still might be a disconcerting issue to folks not used to the dynamics of smaller sites. But again, I still feel the specific comment policy as practiced on SF&F is fairly arbitrary at best. – JakeGould Jan 4 '16 at 0:18
  • 2
    @JakeGould: "I still feel the specific comment policy as practiced on SF&F is fairly arbitrary at best." To be honest, that's just as true of Stack Overflow. I've seen lengthy, informative comment threads that vanished into the aether. At the same time, I've seen lengthy, pointless comment threads just sit there. For years. Nobody's comment policy is strictly enforced in all cases. – Nicol Bolas Jan 4 '16 at 0:38

You must log in to answer this question.

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