Timeline for Close votes should be blind, in order to preserve objectivity and original thought
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Dec 27, 2012 at 17:05 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| S Dec 27, 2012 at 17:05 | history | unlocked | CommunityBot | ||
| S Dec 27, 2012 at 15:52 | history | notice added | sysadmin1138Mod | Comments only | |
| S Dec 27, 2012 at 15:52 | history | locked | sysadmin1138Mod | ||
| Dec 27, 2012 at 15:51 | comment | added | orokusaki | @HopelessN00b - Can you help me to understand how a question can "devolve" (which actually means to delegate, btw - I think you meant, "de-evolve") without actually being modified in any way. In other words, how can my unedited question become less valuable over the course of one hour? | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 15:50 | comment | added | MDMarra | Oh, I see you're talking specifically about this question. I voted to close it and flagged it to be moved to mSO where it can be properly addressed (Like I mentioned at least three other times). My answer would move with it when it was migrated. Turns out Chris didn't think it deserved to be migrated. Really though, if this bothers you that much, ask it there. This is like having an issue with a federal tax law and bringing it up at a school board meeting. People can discuss it with you, but there's no one in attendance that can actually resolve your issue. | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 15:48 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | @orokusaki Yeah. It can also be worthy of answering, but devolve into something worthy of closing instead, 12 comments later... | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 15:47 | comment | added | MDMarra | I'm not sure how you got that from what I said, but sometimes I will answer an off-topic question if it's easy to throw the OP a bone while also closing it so that future visitors don't use it as an example of an acceptable question (and yes, this happens all the time) | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 15:41 | comment | added | orokusaki | So, let me see if I understand. If a question is worthy of answering, it can simultaneously be worthy of closing, by the same person? | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 15:35 | comment | added | MDMarra | Stack Exchange has made it very clear that they like a lot of eyes on anything potentially controversial. This includes things that accumulate close votes. That's why anything edited is automatically bumped to the top, for example. That way, people will look at it and see if the edit was malicious or incorrect. It's how they built such a large self-governing network. If you have a philosophical disagreement with it, you'll have to post about it somewhere that they will see it, which isn't here. | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 15:35 | comment | added | orokusaki | @ChrisS - I'm pretty sure you just lectured me about how being objective isn't necessary, and then subsequently lectured me about being practical and empirical... which is based purely on objectivity, ironically. Unless you're paying homage to Rene Descartes, et al (subjective nature of experience). In other words, if you're going to try to insult somebody, it's good to educate yourself on the pulpit whence you're intending to insult them. | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 15:34 | comment | added | MDMarra | @orokusaki Like I said in my answer. This really doesn't even belong on this meta. Ask on meta.stackoverflow. Employees and Community Managers will see it there. This meta is only for issues specific to Server Fault. What you're talking about is a change that would be made across the entire SE network. Even if a large number of people agreed with you here, there's nothing we can do about it. | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 15:32 | comment | added | orokusaki | Actually, simply asserting that something is a "good thing" over and over is pretty much the opposite of objectivity (see argumentum ad infinitum), doesn't prove a point, and closes the discussion to meaningful debate. | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 15:31 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | @orokusaki Those questions can be asked on Philosophy. We only deal with "practical questions based in empirical fact"... at least we try to stick to that. | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 15:29 | comment | added | MDMarra | There are not a lot of active users with close/delete privs in relation to the number of overall users. Bringing anything controversial or potentially off-topic to those people is a good thing. No vote is binding. If you feel that something was closed in error, just flag it with a short description of why you think it was an error. Mistakes happen, but if you saw the average quality of question that gets closed on a given day, I think you might have a different opinion :) | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 15:27 | comment | added | MDMarra | I'm not sure that you're understanding what I'm saying. There has been a concerted effort from all SE sites to cut down on bad migrations. Being able to see migration votes and use a flag to help avoid an erroneous migration is a good thing. Also, Stack Exchange clearly wants a lot of eyes on anything with a close vote, a delete vote, or that's extremely upvoted or downvoted. That's why there are 10k tools that show all of these things to high rep users. There is also a review queue that shows questions of low quality, first posts, close votes, etc. | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 15:27 | comment | added | orokusaki | @ChrisS - how does objectivity preclude influence? And, how does mob mentality provide meaningful influence? Those are two real questions... | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 15:26 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | @orokusaki Why is objectivity important? I thought the point of a community was to influence, and be influenced, by others - to share and learn. | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 15:22 | comment | added | orokusaki |
1) Your argument is predicated on a context in which there are copious close votes, which is primarily due to problem I've outlined in my OP. 2) You're literally saying that you base your votes on others' votes, while saying you don't need to.... Regardless of whether your motivations are with or against the grain, if they're influenced by others' votes in any way, they're no longer objective. This isn't a hard concept to grasp, and the symptoms of the problem I've outlined give a pretty ominous look into the future of the community, if you look at all the "why closed" questions.
|
|
| Dec 27, 2012 at 15:09 | comment | added | MDMarra | I'm not saying that I need to see that there are 3 votes to know it needs to be migrated. I'm saying the opposite. If a question has three votes to migrate somewhere and it's bad, then the other two close votes don't matter. They can be for any other closure reason and the question will still be migrated 3/5 is all it takes. Seeing that 3 people have voted to migrate a bad question that doesn't deserve migration, I can flag for a mod to unilaterally close it, negating the migration, instead of casting a 5th close vote myself that would send trash to another site. | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 14:45 | history | answered | MDMarra | CC BY-SA 3.0 |