4

On the hardware recommendations Stack Exchange site, most of the users are being met with questions being closed or placed on hold. The current moderation team has decided to limit their scope to a very narrow band. Meaning a very high % of users who are asking perfectly valid questions on a site named hardware recommendations are unable to receive any assistance. Is there any official process to have the scope of support, and moderation practices reviewed?

The reason I ask, is because the name is so very broad it basically stops any additional pages from being created. For instance, If I wanted to have a Stack Exchange that reviewed build guides, or helped users find compatible PC parts. I wouldn't be able to because that would fall in the "Hardware Recommendations" jurisdiction. Even though it is considered out of scope on that site.

I've seen users go through as many as 8 edits before having their question moved from on hold to a closed status. People on the meta pages are creating new posts asking how their questions should be worded, so they remain open. Stack Exchange staff needs to get involved for a scope/moderation review.

| |
  • I suppose so. The problem is one of two things. Either the sites naming is misleading, confusing users. Or the scope of support is too narrow. One of these things needs to be addressed. Based on the number of closed/on hold questions, there is a huge demand for actual hardware recommendations. If a recommendations site does not fit within the stack exchange format, then it should be shut down. – user3725 Jul 19 '16 at 19:24
  • 1
    This type of discussion is more appropriate on Hardware Recommendation's meta. I suggest you post a question (or more) with explicit suggestions on how to improve the site though. You are making suggestions that go against what the community has already agreed upon is on and off topic. There are topics about scope and name. There are topics about the number of closed questions the site has and possible ways to fix it. Engage with us on meta with your suggestions. – Andy Jul 19 '16 at 19:35
  • I see you've been moved here. The above is still relevant, but the individual questions should be in their own question...not attached to this one. – Andy Jul 19 '16 at 19:36
  • How do I delete only my hardware recommendations account without effecting my other accounts? This discussion is no longer worth having. – user3725 Jul 19 '16 at 19:37
6

The troubles of this site and the prospects of adding to this scope has already been address in your previous post where I talked about what (if anything) can be done with this site.

Anyone else getting frustrated...?

If you feel the site's name is misleading or confusing users, I agree with you; please feel free to contribute to those discussions. But we are not auditing the viability of "Hardware Recommendations" beyond the discussions that have already been started.

"Hardware Recs" was started on a tenuous story at best. Removing all these questions from other sites where they're not wanted doesn't seem to be making them work any better here, so we're not really interested in expanding this topic space beyond the type of material Stack Exchange was designed to host. If you have a more workable solution based in incremental improvements beyond "shut it all down", please feel free to suggest it. But the questions being closed are closed because Stack Exchange wasn't designed to solicit broad recommendations or product reviews which are better hosted in a threaded discussion forum.

| |
  • 1
    How do I delete my hardwarerecs profile without effecting my other profiles? I no longer want to be associated with this stack site. – user3725 Jul 19 '16 at 19:42
  • @BigElittles Use the 'contact us' link at the bottom of the site. – Robert Cartaino Jul 19 '16 at 19:43
2

Robert's answer covers very nicely why the moderation practices here don't need to change; I also feel the need to address some misconceptions you have with the system.

The current moderation team has decided to limit their scope to a very narrow band.

The fact that our scope is narrow is not down to the ♦ moderators - it's down to discussions had here on meta in the early days of the site. Anyone with issues about the scope is welcome to start a meta discussion about it.

For instance, If I wanted to have a Stack Exchange that reviewed build guides, or helped users find compatible PC parts. I wouldn't be able to because that would fall in the "Hardware Recommendations" jurisdiction.

Given that those things are out of scope here, they would explicitly not fall within our jurisdiction for the purposes of creating a new Stack Exchange site. Whether such things would make a good site is up for debate, but it is possible to suggest them.

I've seen users go through as many as 8 edits before having their question moved from on hold to a closed status.

The change in status from "on hold" -> "closed" is an automatic process: after 5 days, an on-hold question is changed to closed. This is not a manual process that the community or the ♦ moderators are applying.

| |
  • 1
    When BigElittles complained about the narrow scope, I don't think he was complaining about the scope of the site as it has been determined. I think he is complaining, fundamentally, about the interpretation of the scope by the diamonds - and if he wasn't, I will certainly submit that complaint. The other day you put on hold as tech support a question that was asking whether to buy a hard drive with one revision level or another. That's a question about the specification of the drive, for the explicit and singular purpose of making a purchase. I disagree with that kind of moderation. – Adam Wykes Jul 21 '16 at 14:56
  • 1
    It was this one: hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/4273/… – Adam Wykes Jul 21 '16 at 15:00

You must log in to answer this question.