-10

When a very old question is bumped by an SE Bot or by user activity, certain comments or answers are not appropriate. For example, asking a long-gone OP for a clarification or answering a question with a modern context that didn't exist when it was asked without being clear on that issue.

Could the system generate warnings or suggestions before accepting Comments or Answers to questions beyond a certain age (perhaps 6 months)? For example:

  • If a question is bumped by a bot, prominently place the reason for that at the top of the page. What does the bot want? Say it.
  • If OP hasn't logged in for 6+ months, mention that on the page or mention it before accepting a new comment or try to detect new Comments that ask OP a question and warn the user before posting.

These questions are resurfaced for a reason, we don't want to squash all comments or answers. Just help people by reminding them of the context in which they are writing.

Notes:

  • I'm avoiding getting into the question of whether changes to the bumping algorithm could avoid the need for this. It has been discussed a lot, see Old Questions. So given current behavior, I'm asking if people who read an old question can be given a a little reminder to help them stay appropriate.

  • I can't control how people answer here, but I'd like to urge you not to say this isn't necessary because "People should be careful, they should look at the age of the question, we don't need to help them they should be smarter" or anything like that. If that's what you think, you're right! They should. But please allow the possibility of making the site better and easier to use even though you're right. If you think this is a bad idea, please write an answer explaining the harm it would do, rather than berate those who would benefit from it.

Improve this question
9
  • 3
    For your first feature, it used to exist but was removed.
    – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog
    Commented Oct 1 at 15:52
  • Thanks @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog, that's useful. That question is "where did the notice go" and the answer is "we removed it because it has no value". I disagree obviously, so pointed the answerer here.
    – jay613
    Commented Oct 1 at 15:59
  • @jay613 Note that Yaakov is no longer works for SE, but he's still an active member of the community.
    – PM 2Ring
    Commented Oct 1 at 17:13
  • 2
    FWIW, I occasionally post comments on old questions that are missing important details, especially if it appears that existing answers have also ignored those details.
    – PM 2Ring
    Commented Oct 1 at 17:18
  • 11
    Note that the OP is almost irrelevant. Yes, only the OP may give some clarifications, but in such cases, bumping is useful because the question should be closed as unclear. If, however, the question can be answered, then it should and whether the OP will ever come back is completely irrelevant. We don't answer for the OP, we answer for all the other users who might share the question. Those who think this is important can always just look at the posting date.
    – terdon
    Commented Oct 1 at 18:20
  • What if a now-inactive asker posted a vague question long ago, a few answers tried to second-guess them, and you are the first to point out the question is ambiguous and should have been clarified? On Stack Overflow, I run into this routinely.
    – user3840170
    Commented Oct 2 at 5:43
  • 1
    @user3840170 my suggestion will help you to notice you are in that situation and to act appropriately.
    – jay613
    Commented Oct 2 at 9:10
  • 1
    @terdon entirely missing the point of my suggestion which is simply to remind people to look at the posting date before making comments where that date might be relevant. Why is it bad to make it easier? You haven't explained that. "Can always just look" is exactly what I warned against. With that attitude we don't need the majority of SE features. We don't need comments or moderation or anything.
    – jay613
    Commented Oct 2 at 9:18
  • @jay613 Indeed – in fact, this is why I upvoted the proposal, even as I am not convinced it will actually solve the problem completely.
    – user3840170
    Commented Oct 2 at 12:00

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
3

I think this is a useful idea*. Bumping by the SE Bot is an exceptional occurrence meant to elicit an exceptional handling of posts. The way this is currently stealthily injected into regular activity on posts, even pretending to be a modification in the question header, hides the important information that exceptional handling may be required.
Similarly, bumping by edit tends to happen on newer, active posts. That very old posts that still have not received an answer are just edit-bumped is rare.

I mean, we can debate the "philosophy of SE" and whatnot all day, but curation mechanisms exist to handle the reality that doesn’t match that philosophy. Bumping by the SE Bot is such a mechanism, and it would be nice if it acknowledged that reality. Questions being abandoned is a very real problem there, which can be seen by automated cleanup aka roomba. Nothing is gained by hiding that when it may be important.

*The finer details such as when the warning should actually trigger are left as an exercise to whoever implements it. For example, question activity age is a much simpler trigger than user availability, which may have to take into account the entire network activity.

Improve this answer
6
  • 1
    "Bumping is an exceptional occurrence" - no it's not. Any edit would bump, and editing old posts to fix grammar, or even details to make them up to date is not "exceptional".
    – Shadow Wizard
    Commented Nov 1 at 10:40
  • 2
    @ShadowWizard Thanks. I was thinking it’s obvious I am referring to the bot there, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. That said, bumps of very old posts by other means still are exceptional as far as I can tell - most activity is on recent posts.
    – MisterMiyagi
    Commented Nov 1 at 11:39
  • Bot-bumping is not intended for exceptional reasons, There are a few broad criteria, but the posts that get bumped by Community♦️ are not in need of exceptional handling, they merely are likely to be in need of additional regular handling.
    – Nij
    Commented Nov 1 at 21:19
  • @Nij Additional regular handling without any activity or recency isn’t regular; it’s handling that wouldn’t normally occur, so it’s rather… exceptional. Most content just gets, err, regular regular handling based on activity.
    – MisterMiyagi
    Commented Nov 1 at 21:43
  • Voting and answers are not exceptional actions nor do they involve exceptional handling - virtually anything exceptional will involve a moderator - because the community doing things is what regular activity is. The fact that regular activity didn't happen a long time ago doesn't make it exceptional when it's pointed out to still be needed.
    – Nij
    Commented Nov 2 at 3:44
  • @Nij See, that’s the problem I have with all the "nothing exceptional" stances. Regular activity very much includes not voting. Not up/downvoting something mediocre is perfectly fine, as is not VTC'ing without serious problems. The expectation that it’s still needed regardless is exceptional - we can bicker about the wording, alright, but nudging users to vote isn’t regular.
    – MisterMiyagi
    Commented Nov 2 at 8:32
1

Despite my request at Where's the bump notice?, they decided to not reintroduce a bump notice. Bump information is still found in the timeline.

If it's important to you, the time the question was asked is still prominently featured above and below the the question (in different formats), and you can get an idea for roughly how recently OP (or any user) has been on the site from their profile.

However, one of the ideals of SE is that a post never becomes too old (hence no automatic locking or archiving of old posts). Even if something looks abandoned, there's always a chance the author could come back. With answers, they don't need to come back; the community should evaluate the answer and vote accordingly.

Improve this answer
3
  • 1
    This answer does not address the question. The issue is not that I'm unable to find the age of a question when I want to. It is that sometimes I should want to but forget. The system can easily help me write better comments and answers by reminding me when I seem to be overlooking this. I do think the bump notices were useful. Bumping something without explicitly saying why seems unproductive.
    – jay613
    Commented Oct 31 at 21:17
  • @jay613 You can find the age of a question very easily, from the "Questions" page, the top or the bottom of the question.
    – Starship
    Commented Oct 31 at 21:28
  • 5
    @jay613 This answer is essentially a frame challenge: Why would we want a notice that a question may be too old when that's counter to the philosophy of SE?
    – Laurel
    Commented Oct 31 at 22:52
0

If a question is bumped by a bot, prominently place the reason for that at the top of the page. What does the bot want? Say it.

This used to exist, but it was removed nearly 5 years ago with the following reasoning:

it is not a best practice to give a small technical detail related to post sorting such a visible placement in relation to content

As for this

If OP hasn't logged in for 6+ months, mention that on the page or mention it before accepting a new comment or try to detect new Comments that ask OP a question and warn the user before posting.

For most readers, when the OP last logged in is rather irrelevant. This is even more of giving "a small technical detail" "such visible placement in relation to content". Mentioning it when you try to comment would be even more annoying/disruptive. For the very rare cases when that is relevant, you can always check the OP's profile page, which is linked from all of their posts.

Even if your comment/answer might not help the OP, it might help someone else, and SE questions are made for everyone. And maybe someone else will understand what the OP meant and clarify for you. Or close then questions as "Needs Details or Clarity".

Improve this answer
16
  • "For most readers, when the OP last logged in is rather irrelevant." Citation needed. I don't care whether they last logged in one minute or one day ago, but if they are gone for a long time many actions are just pointless. While questions should be for everyone, not all are, and many of those need interacting with the OP to salvage them.
    – MisterMiyagi
    Commented Oct 31 at 19:59
  • Any question should be potentially useful for other people. Any question which is useless without interaction with the OP should be closed. @MisterMiyagi
    – Starship
    Commented Oct 31 at 20:25
  • That doesn't mean there aren't also other actions that become useless if the OP is no longer around, such as asking them for clarification.
    – MisterMiyagi
    Commented Oct 31 at 20:29
  • Other users could potentially have understood what the OP meant. And if you need clarification to answer a question, then that question should be closed. @MisterMiyagi
    – Starship
    Commented Oct 31 at 20:30
  • None of that changes that asking the OP for clarification becomes useless when they are no longer around. Someone else can edit the question? Great, but someone else isn't the OP, so I don't have to ask them. The question should be closed? Great, but the question isn't the OP, so I, dunno, could repeat this again, but it seems kind of self-evident that closing a question and asking for clarification are related but separate actions.
    – MisterMiyagi
    Commented Oct 31 at 20:41
  • I dont understand your comment. I have seen situations where user A posts somethign, user B doesn’t understand it and the post is then explained by another user, user C. I don’t see what the question not being the OP means (beyond the obvious) or how that is relevant here. And if you need clarification, then the question is unclear. Unclear questions should be closed.
    – Starship
    Commented Oct 31 at 20:44
  • It means that none of what you note here is by itself a reason why asking the OP for clarification is still as relevant when they are gone as it was before. User C and closing the question are completely orthogonal to asking the OP for information only they can provide.
    – MisterMiyagi
    Commented Oct 31 at 20:53
  • @MisterMiyagi If answering a question requires asking the OP information which only they can provide then the question should be closed.
    – Starship
    Commented Oct 31 at 20:54
  • Yes? You keep repeating that but it doesn't mean one can't also ask them for clarification. The close banners and descriptions are notoriously generic, so a tailored comment is often helpful - if they are still around to act on it.
    – MisterMiyagi
    Commented Oct 31 at 21:05
  • @MisterMiyagi Yes. My point is that even if the OP is active you should VTC. So what difference does it make if the OP is inactive.
    – Starship
    Commented Oct 31 at 21:06
  • Seriously? The difference is whether it's useful to also ask them for clarification. I'm not sure if this needs pointing out - apparently it does - but one can a) VTC and b) ask for clarification, completely independently. That one does a) or that a) is still meaningful has no effect whatsoever on whether one does b) or whether b) is still meaningful.
    – MisterMiyagi
    Commented Oct 31 at 21:07
  • Yes. You can also do that if even if B is less likely to get a response from the OP. @MisterMiyagi
    – Starship
    Commented Oct 31 at 21:09
  • Yes. And I haven't questioned that people are able to do that. I have questioned whether it's meaningful and has a point.
    – MisterMiyagi
    Commented Oct 31 at 21:13
  • @MisterMiyagi It does because there is a chance that another user will explain it or the OP will come back.
    – Starship
    Commented Oct 31 at 21:14
  • 1
    @Starship your answer and comments are in the category that I predicted and was hoping to avoid. That if everyone behaves ideally no new feature is necessary. But as I said in the question, if everyone behaves ideally almost all features are unnecessary. Among them, comments. I'm glad you are not a designer of road signs.
    – jay613
    Commented Oct 31 at 21:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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