Timeline for Can we do anything to change the dynamic of the site?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2013 at 12:42 | comment | added | August | I agree with all of this answer, but #3 seems like it has a good chance of really cutting down on burnout from sifting through crappy questions. Instead of trying to actively "fix" every...single...bad question that comes in, just ignore them and if they're really that bad then bulk-close them after awhile. This will have 2 effects - 1. less burnout on high-rep users since they can just ignore bad questions, and 2. improve the experience for crappy posters, because they won't be hit with negative comments, immediate closure, think we are mean people, etc...They will just hear crickets. | |
| May 18, 2013 at 7:16 | comment | added | the-wabbit | @MadHatter If things are missing in the toolchain, there should be a way to help that. Either by asking the SE devs or by hitting the API directly. As for the reason why the Usenet is dead, it is surely not because it has been drowned in posts, it is quite the opposite: as it is anything but a low-threshold medium by today's standards, it has been simply dried off due to the lack of new users. So we should not just dismiss any lessons learned there but take a second look - I am quite confident the Server Fault community could benefit from a lot of that. | |
| May 17, 2013 at 16:44 | comment | added | MadHatter | Sorry to go on; I should note that one tool I do use is "ignored tags" - but my list of ignored tags is now over a hundred long, and I'm still hard put to keep up with the remainder. | |
| May 17, 2013 at 16:40 | comment | added | MadHatter | I don't disagree with a lot of this, but my ability to cope with rubbish on USENet was driven largely by the toolchain available. SF gives me no ability to killfile a user, or to only see posts from people with >n rep, or customise my home page (eg, new questions sorted by rep of user asking). NNTP readers gave me all of that, and that helped keep USENet relevant for me longer than I'd expected. But it still died in the end; the only newsfroups I read now are unofficial local ones propagated between consenting server admins. | |
| May 17, 2013 at 14:08 | comment | added | Ward - Trying Codidact Mod | I need to think about this some more, but wanted to say: I agree with a lot of this ie that it happens everywhere. But the premise of SF (and all SE sites) - the thing that makes them different/better - is the rating of questions/answers: good posts are supposed to stand out by being upvoted, while bad ones get voted down. The reason the zillions of pointless questions are a problem is that even with filtering, they drown out the good ones, making it hard for people to rate them. | |
| May 17, 2013 at 13:36 | comment | added | MDMarra | It's not just me (as evidenced by conversations in chat and upvotes on posts made on this topic). There is a noticeable decline in content on the site. If the answer is "It's going to keep droping, adapt or leave" then that's fine. I'm hoping that there's another solution, which is why I've been participating in these meta posts. | |
| May 17, 2013 at 13:34 | comment | added | the-wabbit | Also, this is a problem which nobody else would be able to fix for you - as the barrier is individual (and even constantly changing), everybody needs to fix it for himself. | |
| May 17, 2013 at 13:21 | comment | added | the-wabbit | @MDMarra it is not about reducing the contribution, it is about focusing it. I believe there is little value in having a high-profile AD admin spend his or her time with reading and closing or migrating irrelevant questions about Ubuntu Linux. The time likely would be much better spent if these questions were filtered out of this user's view. "stop whining" is not meant as a call to shut up but to build individual barriers. | |
| May 17, 2013 at 13:14 | comment | added | MDMarra |
I do agree with a lot of this, but not: stop whining - there is no one forcing you to read bullshit Of course there is no one forcing anyone to read bullshit. However, the lower the signal-to-noise ratio, the less participation you'll get from highly skilled admins willing to share their knowledge. I look at it as "I have two choices. Whine now and maybe something changes, or gradually stop contributing to SF as the quality keeps dropping." If you really want many of the top users that feel this way to keep quiet, many will just disappear from the community.
|
|
| May 17, 2013 at 13:08 | history | answered | the-wabbit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |