Timeline for Some parting thoughts... and apologies for the drama
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:14 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.serverfault.com/ with https://meta.serverfault.com/
|
|
| May 12, 2015 at 15:22 | comment | added | antony.trupe | Does it sound like @Shog9 is laying the arguments for ServerFault to not be a site any more to anyone else? | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 11:34 | comment | added | BE77Y | (cont.) I find it unlikely that more would find it desirable to seek their place and participate here for any length of time as the problem has not been resolved. I for one am somewhat of an example: long-time user, only recent member and active participant but I've already become quite tired of the tedium that is the average question quality on this site, and I don't think that the blame lies solely with the community members. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 11:32 | comment | added | BE77Y | I agree that a single moderator or a small group of moderators taking on the majority of the burden of an SE site is a recipe for disaster in the long run (in that they will likely get burned out and leave as noted), but there seems to be something lacking here. @Shog9, if you do indeed believe that this community is dying, and that for it to thrive it needs more than just moderators to, well, moderate - but the rest of the participants are quite unequivocally raising concern about the quality of the questions - why is it surprising that they get tired of participating? | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 8:52 | comment | added | Andrew B | "That holding back rubbish is something to be encouraged, that discouraging it is counter-productive to improving the site." -- It gets a bit circular unfortunately. Other SE topic matters don't amount to "Q&A's about [x] in a non-rubbish context", which forces more spinning of the gears. Put into context, I think this pretty much boils down to "your subject matter is a poor fit for SE". | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 6:43 | comment | added | Shog9 | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 6:40 | comment | added | MadHatter | That is a pretty fair point. But we also would like you to try something different - actually honouring the promise that "We don’t run this site. The community does.". It's easy to honour that when all goes well; there is then nothing in contention. It's what you do when things aren't seen as going well that says whether or not it's worth the screen space on which it's written. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 6:33 | comment | added | Shog9 | Please understand, @Mad - I'm not trying to win some rhetorical argument here. I've seen which communities function and which ones fail, within the context of this particular system - all I'm suggesting is that this one has been trying the same strategies for as long as I've known it, with the same results; if you're not happy with those results, then perhaps it's time to learn from the examples of the others. Whether this community lives or dies remains to be seen - but there's an awful lot of hand-wringing about it, yet seemingly an unwillingness to try something different. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 6:22 | comment | added | MadHatter | Shog, me too. I don't question your experience, but I do question why the powers that be seem to question everyone else's (and their motivation). All things die. You are right to note that. You may not be right in using that observation to justify your particular theory of why they die. We might have other explanations for why a community is dying (as you claim this one is); observing that a phenomenon is happening does not prove one hypothetical explanation of that phenomenon over another. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 6:21 | comment | added | Shog9 | @Mad, I've been doing this for a lot of years. I'm not telling you these things because I'm passionate about them; I'm telling you because I've watched the same sad little play a hundred times and it always ends the same way: the old die out from exhaustion and are replaced, their efforts come to naught. If you don't believe it, then ignore me; the evidence is right in front of you whenever you're willing to see it. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 6:17 | comment | added | MadHatter | Shog, please, calm down. You may feel as you write above, and it looks as if you do, and passionately, too. But the community is entitled to have a viewpoint on this (this being the issue of quality of questions, and the desirable disposition of those perceived to be poor), too. I believe it has pretty clearly expressed it, over time. I know the powers that be don't like what the community says, but it's a legitimate viewpoint, and discourse is unlikely to be improved by constant unilateral emotive denial. We desire to handle these things efficiently, we disagree about how. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 6:10 | comment | added | Shog9 | The one I noted. That holding back rubbish is something to be encouraged, that discouraging it is counter-productive to improving the site. If you want to turn this into a battle between Defenders of the Realm and Crap-lovers, then you're blind to what's been happening here. How many people need to beat their brains out on the same stone wall before y'all start walking around it? It doesn't matter how many questions you shut down, how many people you drive away; there are countless more where they came from. You can either learn to handle them efficiently, or waste the last of your energy. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 6:06 | comment | added | MadHatter | Which claim(s) do you reject? That the community has been told how to moderate, that HN was at the vanguard of a community pushback, or that if volunteers are overruled they will become disheartened? | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 6:03 | comment | added | Shog9 | I've heard this claim repeatedly, and reject it outright. Unless this is your first time on the Internet, you know well that this isn't a battle to be won; it's an ongoing task, part and parcel of being a part of a public website. There is no holding back this sea; it is bigger than all of us. We can channel it, rise above it... or be crushed by it. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 5:48 | comment | added | MadHatter | If SE wants the community to moderate, it might help if it stopped constantly telling us that we're doing it wrong. It's all very well to wish that poor HN had asked for help, but you seem to forget that at his election he was leading the vanguard of yet another attempt by the community to hold back the sea of rubbish. If SE repeatedly, and sometimes forcibly, prevents the community from imposing its collective will on the site, why on earth act surprised when all it can hear is tumbleweeds? | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 3:24 | history | answered | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |