Timeline for Anyone else getting frustrated with what is consider on topic at the Hardware Recommendations Stack Exchange?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 12, 2016 at 23:06 | comment | added | ArtOfCode Mod | @AdamW I didn't think it was, particularly. There is a difference between being "a jerk" and being dryly blunt. But hey, we'll see what another moderator thinks. Meanwhile, I'd reiterate Andy's comment - if you have concerns, you should write up a meta question about it so that everyone with a view can answer it. | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 21:06 | comment | added | Adam Wykes | The best part about this is that we can let the site decide for itself whether I am right or not. And you'd do well to listen to your own advice and be nice. I've flagged this comment of yours as condescending and unwarranted. | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 21:04 | comment | added | Andy | At this point the discussion has gone way outside of my answer. I suggest you write your own so that you can articulate the concerns you have in a single post instead of across multiple comments that are now behind a "show more" link. It'll also help to have your concerns in an answer instead of various comments. @AdamWykes | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 21:04 | comment | added | ArtOfCode Mod | @AdamW That opinion is based on inaccurate perceptions. You'd do well to realise that diamonds are not fascist bureaucratic dictators, but are in fact doing the best job they can in a small community to try to bring to life the community's mandate. | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 21:01 | comment | added | Adam Wykes | I think you are wrong. That number should concern you, because it is going to disengage users who expect help, not endless revisions to questions that any normal IT guy could parse and respond intelligently to if he or she were so inclined. I am feeling fairly disengaged myself. What we have here is basically an assumption of "precrime," to use PKD's expression liberally, for the benefit of moderators who feel overworked because they don't understand how to leverage the site's mechanics to their advantage, resulting in a stultifying bureaucracy of vaguely defined and enforced limitations. | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 20:55 | comment | added | ArtOfCode Mod | @AdamW 37.5% of edited questions were reopened. No, that's not concerning, that's about right - especially for a site as experimental and with as strict quality requirements as this one. | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 18:16 | comment | added | Adam Wykes | You don't find that statistic concerning? | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 18:15 | comment | added | ArtOfCode Mod | @AdamW also, your stats request: in the past 90 days, over 200 closures. 32 of those were edited, 12 were reopened. | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 18:13 | comment | added | Adam Wykes | @ArtOfCode what is the purpose of the voting, then? | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 18:13 | comment | added | Adam Wykes | Whether or not you have a good command of English, I have seen instances of the mod simply not correctly parsing the request in the original question, though multiple other people were able to satisfactorily answer the question in remarkably short order. How, one must ask, were those people able to multiply accomplish what the mod could not, in short order, with a good degree of success? Witness the (now removed) commentary on this question: hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/4182/… | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 18:05 | comment | added | ArtOfCode Mod | @AdamW because the users don't have the tools necessary. I'm talking about answers that don't meet the standards that we objectively set out on Meta; these are answers that should be deleted, not just downvoted. | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 18:01 | comment | added | Adam Wykes | I construe closure as punishment because the result is divorced from the intent; it functions punitively even if the mod does not intend it. Mods attempting to preempt a tide of bad answers seems backwards on a site that has voting. Why not let the answers come and users separate the wheat from the chaff using the tools provided to them? This seems especially prudent given your lack of manpower. | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 17:58 | comment | added | ArtOfCode Mod | ...and so I'm happy to help word a question clearly, but that requires the OP to engage with me so I understand it). | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 17:57 | comment | added | ArtOfCode Mod | @AdamWykes As for your assertion that mods aren't taking the time to understand a question, let me assure you that I at the very least am (and I expect the same of my fellow moderators). Without trying to boast, I do have a good command of English, it being my first language, so if I can't understand a question (for non-technical reasons), then the vast majority of people will have difficulty understanding it, and it warrants closing as "unclear" and the OP to be asked to reword it (with assistance if they need - I recognise that English is not a first language for many of our users... | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 17:53 | comment | added | ArtOfCode Mod | @AdamWykes You misconstrue question closure as a punishment. It's not. It's actually designed to help: it's saying "this isn't answerable in its current form, and if we let it get answered then the answers you get likely won't help you - so here's why, and have some time to edit it". | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 16:41 | comment | added | Adam Wykes | SQL is certainly not mine either, so I'll be no help. I will only add my two cents that I think it would behoove moderators to wait and judge questions with the help of the answers they receive before subjecting them to that kind of purgatory. | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 16:40 | comment | added | Andy | SQL isn't my strong skill, but you have to account for the amount of time it takes for a question to be edited too. A question rarely gets reopened without the edit taking place too. | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 16:38 | comment | added | Adam Wykes | Or, put differently, the average reopen time is almost two full days, with less than 50% of all questions put on hold being opened again. Perpetrated simply because, in many cases, the moderator may not understand the question. | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 16:34 | comment | added | Andy | Looks like reopen time is less than two days | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 16:26 | comment | added | Andy | Using the queries mentioned here, there are 60 reopened questions out of 151 that have been closed. Note: Deleted questions don't appear in SEDE, so the 151 is the low end. | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 16:18 | comment | added | Adam Wykes | Thanks for working with us on those. If I can find the time I will make a separate post. I just felt these issues were related and bore mentioning in this context. Sorry to dilute the focus. | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 16:16 | comment | added | Andy | I'll see if I can find stats in SEDE. For the parts you want to challenge, take those up on their own meta questions here, not in the comments. Take a look at the faq we have regarding quality though. | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 16:14 | comment | added | Adam Wykes | What is the average time to reopen a question after being it on hold, and what is the percentage of questions put on hold which are never reopened? I want these stats. I also want to contest the fundamental assumptions being made about what constitutes a quality post as determined by mods; my basic assertion is that they are being too strict, possibly allowing their own difficulty with parsing somewhat difficult elocution to get in the way of fair moderation. | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 15:59 | comment | added | Andy | "On hold" doesn't mean "never touch this again". It means that the question needs improvement and after such improvement, it can be reopened. The moderators are putting stuff on hold (as they should be) to make it clear to users (both the OP and to the community at large) that the question, as it stands, doesn't meet our guidelines - either quality and/or on topicness. If/when those are resolved the question will be reopened. Looking at the review tools, I see a few have been opened recently. | |
| Jul 12, 2016 at 15:27 | comment | added | Adam Wykes | This sounds an awful like like making excuses for mods that can't be bothered to read through a question. Writing is a continuous process of improvement, and there are almost always ways any given question could be more perfectly composed, but the returns are asymptotic, to be sure. How difficult is "too difficult" for a moderator to be bothered? I would venture that moderators pondering the answer to that question would be better suited to wait and see what kind of response the question gets - if the answers are diffuse or wildly conflicting, that is a better indicator of bad writing. | |
| Jul 3, 2016 at 20:06 | history | answered | Andy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |