Timeline for Crazy idea about soft questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 18, 2013 at 20:39 | comment | added | user9072 | Thank you @ToddTrimble, I read what is written now and this matches exactly my intent. | |
| Oct 18, 2013 at 18:36 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | Hi @quid. In response to a reader who had trouble deciphering your second (c.), I did a little editing based on what I thought you were trying to say. If I got it wrong, please clarify -- thanks. | |
| Oct 18, 2013 at 18:22 | comment | added | Amir Asghari | @quid It seems that we cannot convince each other. I see your points and of course I see some merits in them (in particular, I like "a calmer discussion" part). Yet, I don't think these reasons would be enough to have a mini-site inside meta. If the meta opens this door, who knows which other doors would be opened. | |
| Oct 18, 2013 at 17:43 | history | edited | Amir Asghari | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Update the answer, and some corrections
|
| Oct 18, 2013 at 17:32 | comment | added | user9072 | (c.) It is true that sometimes some users voice their opinions on controversial MO questions they just happen to notice and sort of like (or dislike), but who are not typically involved in accompanying meta discussions. Yet, frankly, these opinions are typically of very little relevance (and value) as often they clearly show little knowledge of the site's culture and standards. And, again, if they want, they could have more influence in a calmer discussion conducted in meta, instead of in a somewhat hectic open/close debate after the question was posted in MO. | |
| Oct 18, 2013 at 17:25 | comment | added | user9072 | (c.) And thus I think that your objection that this would put the decision on the question(s) just in the hands of a few users is not justified. To the contrary, I think having a decision-process on such questions run over the course of a week or a continued form (as suggested) would allow more people to voice their opinion on questions and/or at least make the dicussion more independent of random events like who happened to be online when the question was asked, which in some cases can play a considerable role. (c.) | |
| Oct 18, 2013 at 17:20 | comment | added | user9072 | It shows, and this was my point, that at the very least 60 actual MO users had a look at the post (while it is not quite clear to me what the "views" actually measure, this me referring also to votes). This is not an insignificant proportion already. Contrary to perhaps popular believe there are not that many people that actual take a continued active interest in MO and thus could and would reasonably participate in discussion on appropriateness of a question, also if posted on main. (For instance, only slightly more than 300 voted in the election, while the rep limit was not that high). (c.) | |
| Oct 18, 2013 at 17:09 | comment | added | Amir Asghari | @quid "Thanking Anton" only shows that the ratio voters/viewers is much higher in meta than MO. Could you find any question on MO with about 60 up-votes and just 470 viewers? | |
| Oct 18, 2013 at 13:59 | comment | added | user9072 | I am not so sure so few MO users read meta on a somewhat regular basis. The number of views of various meta post are reasonably high, and not significantly different from those of typical MO questions. Or just look at the question thanking Anton; 60 users voted in less than 48 hours. | |
| Oct 18, 2013 at 13:49 | comment | added | Amir Asghari | @quid But, that purpose works well if the question has been already seen on MO. Considering that not many MO users are frequent users of meta, the idea puts the faith of such questions just in the hand of a few users | |
| Oct 18, 2013 at 13:25 | comment | added | user9072 | I do not see why it should confuse the purposes of meta and main. A main purpose of meta is precisely to discuss which question are and are not appropriate for main. | |
| Oct 18, 2013 at 13:03 | comment | added | Amir Asghari | @quid Paradoxically, just checking the soft questions, I also reaized that the "ignorant" ones are mainly the more experienced users! Moreover, I think the idea somehow confuses the main MO and the meta function and purpose. | |
| Oct 18, 2013 at 12:45 | comment | added | user9072 | I do not really see what the big problem is, but then you also said it is only a soft problem :-) Yes some people will be ignorant about this system, but so what. If we get a consensus on this, we close the question without much debate pointing OP to the pre-staging system. | |
| Oct 18, 2013 at 12:38 | history | answered | Amir Asghari | CC BY-SA 3.0 |