Timeline for Should we try to re-start manual deletions or is the situation fine anyway?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 25, 2015 at 18:19 | comment | added | user9072 | Thank you for the reformulation. A point you seem to put aside, though this should be largely my fault as I did not stress it in the question, is that the manual process included manual/human oversight over what does get deleted (and maybe should not). Trying to be a professional academic, I should better finish something else first. But I will try to give some example of what I mean later. | |
| Apr 25, 2015 at 17:37 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | In addition, administrative decisions of this kind (as other decisions) can occasionally deteriorate into small struggles. Another general point which applies to deleting problems as to other more important matters (and it is difficult to think about less important matters) is that there is a tension between "cleanliness" and "tolerance" and I don't see why it is necessary to make sure that MO is cleaned from all bad question. | |
| Apr 25, 2015 at 17:28 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | Dear Emil, It is a policy question: do we want to "encourage people to do it more" or do we want "not to encourage people to do it more". Dear quid, I formulated now my position as mallow as I can. Generally speaking, perhaps unlike Bill, I regard the responsible approach of a professional academics to be "to avoid as much as possible getting involved in non-crucial administrative jobs." And making a second round (after the automatic system) of decisions if a closed MO question is 6-rate (so it should be left closed) or 7-rate (so it should be deleted) is not crucial to say the least. | |
| Apr 24, 2015 at 19:32 | history | edited | Gil Kalai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Apr 24, 2015 at 17:52 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | I don’t think this is a question of policy. The infrastructure is there, and it’s not as if we can force anyone to actively use it. As far as I can tell, “restart manual deletions” just means “bring the problem to light to encourage people do it more”. | |
| Apr 24, 2015 at 16:05 | comment | added | user9072 | Indeed, as the questions was neutral there seems little need for slightly loaded language like "waste of time" and "no good purpose." (Personally, I am actually not sure what is the best way to proceed. However, I sense that you do not wish to further dicuss the subject so thanks again for your opinion.) | |
| Apr 24, 2015 at 15:28 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | Anyway, the question was neutral and curiosity-motivated so if somebody supports a policy that we should restart manual deletions, I suppose that he should advocate this position in a separate answer. | |
| Apr 24, 2015 at 13:47 | comment | added | user9072 | Thank you for taking the time to elaborate, I agree that the current situation has the advantage of avoiding some conflicts, which while more rare in later days still occured sometimes. It is also true that not doing manual deletions saves some time (although one could still benefit from auto-del and only consider questions past the first, or second, auto-del time for manual deletion). However, I also think that some questions do not get deleted that should better be deleted, in that sense I cannot agree fully that there would be "no good purpose;" yet the benefit might indeed be (too?) small. | |
| Apr 24, 2015 at 13:36 | comment | added | user9072 | @JoelDavidHamkins This is true (and the rep-recalc also plays a role in him being below 10k+ at the moment). However, it seems to me, this is a quite tangential aspect of Bill Johnson's remark. | |
| Apr 24, 2015 at 13:12 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | @Bill, I believe that Gil has been over 10K and back several times, on account of bounties that he has given on his own and other's questions. | |
| Apr 24, 2015 at 12:04 | history | edited | Gil Kalai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Apr 24, 2015 at 11:21 | history | edited | Gil Kalai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 720 characters in body
|
| Apr 24, 2015 at 0:34 | comment | added | Bill Johnson | I agree with Gil that "automatic deletion and no manual deletion is better than it used to be in the manual deletions era". I do not see why "it is also better to avoid practicing manual deletion on top of the automatic one". Why is this so, Gil? The only reason I can see is that, as a responsible 10K user, I should think about voting to delete a bad post if I have that "power". Fortunately, I am not that responsible, so it does not bother me. You, on the other hand, are very responsible and approaching 10K "status", so maybe it bothers you... | |
| Apr 23, 2015 at 18:20 | comment | added | user9072 | Thank you for your opinion; it could be still more useful if you could add why or in which way the situation is better. | |
| Apr 23, 2015 at 18:16 | history | answered | Gil Kalai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |