Timeline for 2014 Moderator Election Q&A - Questionnaire
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2, 2014 at 20:58 | comment | added | Reaces | @Sven Funnily enough, just to see what you ment I tried out the review. And I ended up "passing" a test by upvoting an answer you provided :) | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 18:20 | comment | added | Adi Inbar | To be fair...if you say that the audit system addresses an SO problem that doesn't exist at SF, I'll have to defer to you on that, since my reviewing experience comes from SO. However, if that's the case, it's only because SO is an order of magnitude more popular. If SF achieves its goal and becomes the preeminent IT Q&A resource on the Internet, you can bet you'll see those same problems. | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 18:00 | comment | added | Adi Inbar | In any case, it's hard for me to identify with being personally insulted by a canned message that I know results from an imperfection in an automated system. It should be no more insulting than getting an error message saying you've entered invalid data due to a bug in some program you're using. It may be annoying, but not an insult. In fact, I think you make a case for why it shouldn't be insulting--if you know that you only "failed" because some programmer who doesn't know you from Adam made a tenuous assumption in designing how audits are selected, then what's there to be offended about? | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 17:55 | comment | added | Adi Inbar | For example, regarding audits being a waste of time, I don't think it would be a bad idea to implement some system for achieving "trusted reviewer" status after one has a demonstrated track record for diligent reviewing. I also think there are some methodological flaws in how review audits are selected, and the case you raised pertains to one of them. Too long for comments, I'll get around to discussing this at MSE one of these days. But, I see these as areas for improvement, not reasons for getting rid of the system. | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 17:53 | comment | added | Adi Inbar | @Sven Hmmm..."technology can't solve people problems" has a nice aphoristic ring to it, but I think it's too broad and vague a generalization to be very meaningful. My question is whether the audit system serves a useful function, and my answer is absolutely yes. The kinds of things you seem to see as objections to the system as a whole, I see as specific issues that could be improved. That's what I mean when I say it should be honed rather than eliminated. | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 15:58 | comment | added | Sven | @Reaces: Yes, it's about the review process. Some time ago, SE decided to introduce an audit system where they inserted special review objects that need to be answered in a special way to pass a test. The idea is to prevent people to just click through the review process to earn some badges you can earn for participating in the review process without paying attention. | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 15:54 | comment | added | Sven | Case in point: Just yesterday, I got an failed audit because of an answer where somewhere made a verbatim copy of another answer and was downvoted and deleted because of it. The original answer was OK, so I acted accordingly because I couldn't see the whole picture. No, dear unknown StackExchange programmer, it wasn't me who failed... | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 15:53 | comment | added | Reaces | @Sven This would be in the review process for closing posts? I can't really see how the whole process works because I lack the points to access it. And it'll probably take a long time at my rate getting those points :P (Seeing as how I mostly comment and ask questions, as opposed to answering them) | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 15:50 | comment | added | Sven | @Reaces: It might be irrational, but I feel insulted when some programmer decides it's OK to implement these nonsensical checks that do nothing but slow me down and steal my time (whenever something appears to be strange, I open a link to the original question because of this) and then manage to top it up with messages that feel condescending even if you "pass" the test and get real insulting if you fail it because a) you have a different opinion if something should be closed or b) the programmer failed to anticipate yet another special case that will trip you even if you are careful. | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 15:29 | comment | added | Reaces | @Sven Could you elaborate on where your repeated "Insult me" statement comes from? Is this some SF thing I'm as of yet not aware of? | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 12:34 | comment | added | Sven | @AdiInbar: I strongly disagree with the idea that you can use something like the audit system to solve a people problem, especially if it as crappy and broken as this audit system. Technology can't solve people problems. Also, as usual, this crap was introduced network-wide to solve a SO problem that just doesn't really exist on SF. Anyway, I wouldn't even care if there at least was the option to not be eligible for collecting a few pixels of nothing in exchange for unhindered review. They could take away all my stupid badges if they would just stop to insult me... | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 1:26 | comment | added | Adi Inbar | I do think that the gamification system is a double-edged sword, and that it incentivizes abuse as well as conscientious contributions, but dumping out the baby with the bathwater is the wrong approach. The right approach is the one taken: hand out the badges and stats, but actively weed out those who abuse the system. On the contrary, I think the audit system should be strengthened and honed rather than abolished. | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 1:22 | comment | added | Adi Inbar | I think getting rid of review audits and badges would be a very bad idea. The "gamification" system flat-out works, and no amount of pontificating about how people "should" be motivated by wanting to improve the site and not by gaining "useless internet points" can change the reality that if those "useless internet points" were removed, reviewing activity would crater, and, I want to emphasize, the supply of diligent reviewers would dry up almost to the same extent as the supply of reviewers who just want internet points for the least amount of effort. I'd put money on it. | |
| Nov 26, 2014 at 10:02 | comment | added | Sven | @Reaces: What I was talking about was to more often delete clearly off-topic, redundant or irrecoverably bad questions. As an example, this question posted this morning would be a candidate for deletion (if you can't see it, it's gone as even non-mod users with >= 10k rep can vote to delete closed questions without answers and three downvotes). Care has to be taken to take a measured approach for this and it's something I would discuss with my co-mods first. | |
| Nov 26, 2014 at 9:25 | comment | added | Reaces | I'd like to quickly comment on your "delete instead of close" comment. As a person who's still relatively new to SE and SF I'd like you to reconsider. I've removed my own question before, when someone was able to point me to a similar question (worded in a way that didnt occur to me when I was researching the issue). And allowing for deletions will at some point (probably, most likely) lead to the kind of question I posed being deleted. With all the frustration and confusion that comes with that. | |
| Nov 25, 2014 at 6:22 | history | edited | Sven | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 172 characters in body
|
| Nov 25, 2014 at 4:18 | history | answered | Sven | CC BY-SA 3.0 |