Timeline for How do you tell an answerer that you think their answer needs work?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 1, 2018 at 0:36 | comment | added | Shog9 | Maybe... Maybe stop thinking about this as "how can I ask how to find a mate on IPS without actually asking that" and start thinking about where you're struggling to communicate, @D.Hutchinson. Are you having trouble evaluating others' reactions? Gauging the tone of public interactions? Making smalltalk? Conveying your mood? Buying groceries? Whatever it is you're struggling with, I suspect it's affecting a lot more than such a question would imply, much less be able to address - so drop the Rom-Com setups and get to the point. | |
| Feb 28, 2018 at 19:35 | comment | added | D.Hutchinson | @Shog9 would a question that takes a step back and asks, for instance, "should I ask the lady cashier out", rather than, "I've decided I'm going to try this, how can I best do this", be less controversial and perhaps better for the site? "Should ... " type of questions seem likely to be closed, though, since it asks the community to make a decision for them ... | |
| Feb 28, 2018 at 15:30 | comment | added | Shog9 | Somewhere else I compared these to food safety questions, @tinkering - if you're into sous vide, curing, cheese-making, etc then asking about time at temp makes a good question, but if you just forgot and left a refrigerated ingredient sitting on the table over night the only safe answer is "don't eat it". This class of question may be well-intentioned, but if the asker has to ask at all then they kinda already know the answer and are hoping they're wrong; the controversy arises because a bunch of other people also hope that they're wrong. | |
| Feb 28, 2018 at 7:54 | comment | added | Tinkeringbell Mod | @Shog9 Could you elaborate on the trainwreck stuff a bit? I am confused. Have I answered a bad question that should have been closed? I know we did close 'does this mean she's interested in me' a few times, but I genuinely thought this was a 'good' question in that it already included that assumption. Are such questions just always going to be trainwrecks that we need to learn to live with, and will always require heavy moderation? Or should they not be moderated at all, just so anyone can see what a trainwreck it actually is? | |
| Feb 27, 2018 at 21:56 | comment | added | Shog9 | I have, @Harper - because we tried something like three variations of this topic prior to this one, and they all ended up being even worse. At least there are some questions here that aren't fundamentally creepy. But of course, most of the meta discussion boils down to, "How can we host this trainwreck of a question without it continuing to be a trainwreck?" - so there's naturally a lot of trying to ignore the obvious. | |
| Feb 27, 2018 at 21:51 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | @Shog9 it's not as simple as "my ox got gored today therefore let's go to meta and complain". Heck, I didn't do a thing to make this thread about structural issues in the stack. That subject just keeps coming up, and keeps being treated as an unexplainable series of definitely unrelated anomalies. I've been parts of online communities since using Compuserve to dial into The Well. I have never seen a forum like this. | |
| Feb 27, 2018 at 20:24 | comment | added | Shog9 | You don't have to tell me it's an anomaly, @Harper. I consider it pretty close to a religion site vs. the sorts of practical HOWTO sites that we all know & love. That doesn't mean it can't work - it just means it takes a lot more work. A good portion of the folks answering in this thread have raised more or less the same objections in the past because they didn't like one answer or another & wanted an easy way to be rid of it; they got the same answer. | |
| Feb 27, 2018 at 20:21 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | @shog9 no. You "get what you put in" on other stacks. Here, it's "down the rabbit hole". Of course we don't expect our PoV's to be lauded; but that kind of objectification, stooping down to us to explain how SE works - is very typical here. And it's laughable: we know how other stacks work: not like here. Anyone who questions the order here gets hits with ad-hominem attacks like that at lightspeed. You just don't get that on other stacks. This stack is the anomaly. We are trying to warn you. SMH. | |
| Feb 27, 2018 at 20:14 | comment | added | JMac | Do you understand the notion of "community driven"? That is how SE sites function. If the community seems to be in favour of a specific ideology, then expect the votes to reflect that. I'm not sure how moderation could solve the problem. Then it would just turn into moderator biases instead of community ones. I'd much rather have our quality dictated by the full community instead of just moderators. | |
| Feb 27, 2018 at 20:12 | comment | added | Shog9 | You get what you put in. An awful lot of folks showed up here expecting their PoV to be lauded and everyone else's to be cast into darkness, and were sorely disappointed to find that they had to defend their own and demonstrate the problems in other's. If you don't work together to establish rules and practices, you find those rules and practices established to exclude you. | |
| Feb 27, 2018 at 20:04 | history | answered | Sentinel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |