Timeline for Concern about lesser attention towards relatively advanced questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 8, 2013 at 22:14 | comment | added | user14972 | @Ron: We can't enjoy the good if we're filled up on bad. | |
| Dec 8, 2013 at 20:27 | comment | added | Ron Gordon | @Hurkyl: I agree that some traffic is preferable to others. In an ideal world, we could close off the site to those who hate math and are only here to cheat. But I think that the people who financially back this site do want more traffic and I imagine measure how the site is growing. I am also sure they do care about the quality of the site content, but getting substantial clicks matter for advertising and for keeping the operation of our beloved site financially viable. Thus, we take the good with the bad, so we can enjoy the good. | |
| Dec 8, 2013 at 20:10 | comment | added | user14972 | I disagree, strongly, with the premise that "more traffic" is equivalent to "better". | |
| Dec 8, 2013 at 17:11 | comment | added | Ron Gordon | @AntonioVargas: and I maybe placed too much faith in my feeling that it would be fun to deflate a rep hound. Sometimes I can be a little cruel. | |
| Dec 8, 2013 at 17:09 | comment | added | Antonio Vargas | Probably my last sentence was an exaggeration. At least it requires more "effort" because it is not explicitly fun like doing math. | |
| Dec 8, 2013 at 17:06 | comment | added | Ron Gordon | By the way, I do not mean that out-of-site links (e.g., Wikipedia) are an acceptable way to answer the question. (Many rep hounds use these in order to put a placeholder in a question that is perceived to be an attention-getter, but where they do not have the skills to provide a thorough answer.) I mean, exact question, in-site, with good answers. | |
| Dec 8, 2013 at 17:03 | comment | added | Ron Gordon | @AntonioVargas: maybe, but how hard can it be? I have done this with a few egregious examples. The ones where you know they have to be here somewhere. A link to that answer usually deflates the quick rep-hound, that's all. I know because I have been one and have been so deflated. Of course, then, as Jyriki notes, there are some users who simply do not care and answer anyway. But at least we have tried. | |
| Dec 8, 2013 at 16:57 | comment | added | Antonio Vargas | I offer two thoughts against your call for anti-rep hounds. First, there is not nearly the same incentive for rep hounds and anti-rep hounds. Second, I've found myself to be terrible at using the search function on MSE to find a post I know exists. I'm sure googling well would help, but for me the effort involved in this is also very far out-of-balance with what it takes to answer said question. | |
| Dec 8, 2013 at 16:34 | history | answered | Ron Gordon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |