Episode #125 of the Stack Overflow podcast is here. We talk Tilde Club and mechanical keyboards. Listen now
2 added 1 character in body
source | link

Let me start ofoff by saying that I agree with the fact that this site should be as informative as possible, and that therefore each question should be of sufficient quality to be maintained. However, one should not forget that the main driver of this site is its users (and then especially a few high-rep users). Ideally, everyone would of course want the site to be 100% organized, but for obvious and legitimate reasons deleting questions that are of mediocre quality but that have high quality answers evokes negative emotions from exactly those high-rep users that are of such vital importance to this site. In an perfect world each question on the site is of high quality, but not being able to achieve this on every single question is always better than not having this site at all.

Now to respond to 900's latest answer in which he suggests that users edit questions which are at danger of being deleted, I have the following proposal: why does 900 (or any other person that sees a calling in upgrading the quality of the questions on this site) not edit those question himself instead of deleting them? I think this is the best compromise as it (a) satisfies high-rep users (and maintains their high quality answers) and (b) makes the questions on this site of higher quality.

Let us please try to put our personal differences aside and channel our energies into empowering this site, rather than to try to win personal battles.

Let me start of by saying that I agree with the fact that this site should be as informative as possible, and that therefore each question should be of sufficient quality to be maintained. However, one should not forget that the main driver of this site is its users (and then especially a few high-rep users). Ideally, everyone would of course want the site to be 100% organized, but for obvious and legitimate reasons deleting questions that are of mediocre quality but that have high quality answers evokes negative emotions from exactly those high-rep users that are of such vital importance to this site. In an perfect world each question on the site is of high quality, but not being able to achieve this on every single question is always better than not having this site at all.

Now to respond to 900's latest answer in which he suggests that users edit questions which are at danger of being deleted, I have the following proposal: why does 900 (or any other person that sees a calling in upgrading the quality of the questions on this site) not edit those question himself instead of deleting them? I think this is the best compromise as it (a) satisfies high-rep users (and maintains their high quality answers) and (b) makes the questions on this site of higher quality.

Let us please try to put our personal differences aside and channel our energies into empowering this site, rather than to try to win personal battles.

Let me start off by saying that I agree with the fact that this site should be as informative as possible, and that therefore each question should be of sufficient quality to be maintained. However, one should not forget that the main driver of this site is its users (and then especially a few high-rep users). Ideally, everyone would of course want the site to be 100% organized, but for obvious and legitimate reasons deleting questions that are of mediocre quality but that have high quality answers evokes negative emotions from exactly those high-rep users that are of such vital importance to this site. In an perfect world each question on the site is of high quality, but not being able to achieve this on every single question is always better than not having this site at all.

Now to respond to 900's latest answer in which he suggests that users edit questions which are at danger of being deleted, I have the following proposal: why does 900 (or any other person that sees a calling in upgrading the quality of the questions on this site) not edit those question himself instead of deleting them? I think this is the best compromise as it (a) satisfies high-rep users (and maintains their high quality answers) and (b) makes the questions on this site of higher quality.

Let us please try to put our personal differences aside and channel our energies into empowering this site, rather than to try to win personal battles.

1
source | link

Let me start of by saying that I agree with the fact that this site should be as informative as possible, and that therefore each question should be of sufficient quality to be maintained. However, one should not forget that the main driver of this site is its users (and then especially a few high-rep users). Ideally, everyone would of course want the site to be 100% organized, but for obvious and legitimate reasons deleting questions that are of mediocre quality but that have high quality answers evokes negative emotions from exactly those high-rep users that are of such vital importance to this site. In an perfect world each question on the site is of high quality, but not being able to achieve this on every single question is always better than not having this site at all.

Now to respond to 900's latest answer in which he suggests that users edit questions which are at danger of being deleted, I have the following proposal: why does 900 (or any other person that sees a calling in upgrading the quality of the questions on this site) not edit those question himself instead of deleting them? I think this is the best compromise as it (a) satisfies high-rep users (and maintains their high quality answers) and (b) makes the questions on this site of higher quality.

Let us please try to put our personal differences aside and channel our energies into empowering this site, rather than to try to win personal battles.