It's right there in the Meme question. It means just deleting a tag. With fire.
Origin: Possibly Jeff Atwood /
Strongbad: Trogdor the
Cultural Height: 2010 - 2011
Background: Used in reference to deleting a tag from the system.
See Also: The official burninated dragon, Trogdor the Video Game.
In all ...
This should be implemented. Sometimes your opinion changes on a question after seeing the comments/answers or just after going away (outside? is that real? Wow the new cry engine is sooo realistic!) and re-thinking about it.
We should not be obliged to wait for an edit to be able to change our voice. Meta is about making the things going on and part of ...
It's useful to know how your questions/answers are being voted on the child metas. Votes are feedback, and right now, this feedback isn't explicitly shown to the user. If we need to know if some of our posts got voted up/down, we need to visit the user profile and then check the scores. This is pretty annoying.
Instead of the reputation change,...
As Sam I am notes, it's a judgement call...
Meta sites are a perversion of the Stack Exchange model, discussion sites implemented using a Q&A engine. This works surprisingly well, if you keep the limitations of both in mind at all times:
Voting isn't limited - you can post an opinion and down-vote a conflicting option. Or upvote it. Or find two ...
This is how I want to see it.
I think votes should be neither green nor red, because they don't affect your reputation.
So if you were downvoted, display "-1", if you were upvoted two times, display "+2".
Also, "total score" would be great:
And highlight achievements indicator, as if you got a badge.
I've made a fine rep tracker, almost ...
Posting on a child meta is absolutely fine!
The Stack Exchange team monitors all of the child metas. The child metas do have a smaller reach than MSE, so posting on the child meta to get an initial gauge of support, and then if necessary, bringing that to MSE for a wider audience is fine. But there is no reason to turn a post away from a child meta. Not ...
I like to edit where I go, and hate seeing the posts in need of attention. It's just frustrating to be able to fix posts everywhere, except on the SE Meta sites. It actually gives less motivation to check on them (and decreases the potential to earn badges on them).
Treating good questions with the appropriate attention is the best way to help people change in the way you want
Thanks for this useful guidance, I agree with everything. Except...
...what happens next? There are a zillion good questions, which follow your instructions to the letter, are highly upvoted and they are routinely "ignored". I put that in quotes ...
This is pretty much answered by the tooltip you get when you hover over the "participation" sort link:
Users most active on this site in the last 60 days (combined number of posts, votes, comments and edits).
-- that's all it is. Take the sum of those four values and sort the users based on those sums. The only minor details that are not in the tooltip ...
I'm not a fan of this idea because it:
Invites needless drama.
Probably won't change many suspensions.
Every now and then, a moderator makes a mistake when suspending a user. Maybe they misunderstood a situation, or maybe they acted too hastily.
Users always have a chance to explain themselves in a private reply to the moderator. They can also escalate by ...
Meta review queues should be integrated into the main site's review
Low meta participation is a problem. Since a policy is decided in meta, it can be discouraging to discover that people don't know about meta or simply ignore it. But even as a meta-junkie, I was surprised to see that there is a suggested edit queue on the per-site-metas... for tag wikis. ...
This is actually something that just came up internally that we've been pondering. We want to have a bit more guidance around these issues, especially for our moderators, to prevent some of the very negative experiences we've been seeing around some particular users over the years that originate around Meta questions.
Focus on the problem, not the user.
This seems to take care of the 80% use-case (shall we say), but it doesn't seem to address the more long-standing, venerable, and received discussions which...
Don't immediately lead to a resolution (not that this is surprising; consensus amongst strangers is tough) (example),
Aren't acknowledged as an enhancement (example), or
Aren't communicated that this ...
Judging by the history of certain policy decisions, consensus is reached when 80-90% of the community agrees on an issue, and one staff member unilaterally decides that all those people are all wrong.
Or in more simple terms: Consensus doesn't matter around here.
This touches on something that's been discussed a lot over the years, both here on meta and internally within the company. It's a complicated topic; it's got layers. I'll try & cover it fairly here before addressing your specific proposal.
Problem #1: it's confusing to see what appears to be a normal, low-rep user acting in an official capacity
This is a result/side-effect of some changes Cloudflare made recently, but the fact of the matter is that we'd run into problems with HTTPS support on child meta sites eventually anyway: you can't have a wildcard in the middle of a cert, so meta.*.stackexchange.com could never be a thing and we're not about to start registering/maintaining 100+ certs.
I agree: moderator vacation status on meta should inherit from the status on main. So I'm adding that to my moderator vacation feature request list.
The moderator vacation feature is still in the minimum viable product stage. Currently it serves three purposes:
Clearly remove a vacationing moderators flag-handling statistics from the rest of the team,
The current behavior makes it all about reputation, which is stupid and not what it should be about.
The really interesting information is that someone voted up (or down) your post, that other people found your post helpful or interesting, agree or disagree with your post. But the supercollider popdown doesn't provide this information, it is obsessed with ...
Having some way for users to draw extra attention to posts on meta is a significant workflow missing from functionality. Users should definitely have some way of letting others know "hey, this meta topic is important!"
Regarding bounties specifically, if I'm willing to give up some of my main-site rep because I think an issue on the meta is that important, ...
Code Review has had a number of challenges. The frequency was initially intended to be somewhat 'weekly', but the regularity has diminished to what has become more of a once-a-month-ish.
Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock
Poker Hand Evaluation
Pokemon - Catch em all!
Simple Text Adventure Game
There was an element of 'burn ...
In the mod dashboard (flags queue), if on main site and the meta has flags, the number of flags will be shown and the meta flag queue is linked. With a meta site, the reverse happens.
With you in the next build.
This question has 120 upvotes and is two years old. There's only one reply by SE staff, Shog9, and it's not really an answer to the feature request.
Here's where this is most important. If you've been participating on a meta site for several years, the site policy sometimes changes. Never mind my own opinion, the entire site has since superseded an old ...
I understand that feeling that you can cut through all the BS if you just lay out all sides of the conversation and let everyone vote. But I believe it is much more engaging to let participants post their own answers rather than driving a type of forced-consensus where one person assume all sides of the conversation.
If it's a simple 'yes' or 'no' issue, ...
See Why didn't (or did) I or some other user get a hat although the requirements were (or weren't) fulfilled?:
most hats that require creating content, especially questions and answers, have some requirements that may not be mentioned in the hat description. Generally this involves questions/answers having a positive score (i.e. getting at least ...
Works now, you can edit any wikis on per-site metas, including the ones sourced from this meta.
The thing is, our little meta here is a funny place, sometimes the tag wikis we float to the child metas do not properly fit the community.
The community now have full control around evolving tag wikis on site metas.
Some sites (like Stack Overflow and Server Fault) have GREAT BIG [META]s in their Meta logos.
Other sites like English have puny little [META]s.
I support [META] equality!
If elected I will impose a [META] tax on wealthier sites to help subsidize small family.... er - sorry, slipped into election mode there.
For the record, at first I shared your opinion and asked right away to bring back the link. (I still prefer to have link back to main from meta without site switcher, but that's off topic here :))
Anyway, now that the main contains link to meta under "help" I can actually understand the logic. Suppose user see something odd or a bug. First thing he'll look ...