Timeline for Can we please STOP closing and deleting old posts with answers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 15, 2019 at 0:19 | comment | added | quid Mod | @BillDubuque the most obvious idea is bcause on SO still more questions fall through that cracks than here. Of course that you frame it as a 44% higher rate is a nice attempt at manipulation. So that no confusion arises the rate of closing on our site is below 17%. | |
| May 15, 2019 at 0:09 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | @quid It is not I who brought up these stats, My point was simply that anyone who thinks these stats have some value has some serious explaining to do, e.g. why are we closing at 44% higher rate that SO? It seems biased that you did not highlight that too. But - as I said - I think they have little value so I'm not keen on wasting further time on them. | |
| May 15, 2019 at 0:03 | comment | added | quid Mod | @BillDubuque so what's the problem with 1 in 6 questions getting closed? I mean that's not all that high a rate. (It be interesting to know which percentage people believe is the close percentage. I think most would overestimate it due to all this talk that supposedly so much gets closed.) | |
| May 14, 2019 at 23:41 | comment | added | quid Mod | @BillDubuque You really dislike that data, don't you? Further, and maybe more to the point, could you give some explanation why on a larger site relatively less questions would need to be closed? (That in practice for practical problems less are closed is easy to understand but why it ought to be like this is much less clear.) | |
| May 14, 2019 at 23:39 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | @quid Of course it is your prerogative to make any unfounded inference you desire, just as you did in your original post citing those worthless stats! Apples vs. oranges comparisons aren't very useful for solving these types of problems. | |
| May 14, 2019 at 23:37 | comment | added | quid Mod | @BillDubuque I have to conclude that there was no quantitative basis for your claim. This is rather disappointing. To be clear, of course, size does play a role, and I did take it somewhat into account with giving the restricted statistics. But to claim that SO is comparable in volume to us while, say, physics.se is not is impossible to maintain. Maybe you'll find it in you to acknowledge that your initial formulation was not ideal. | |
| May 14, 2019 at 23:07 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | @quid As I've stated many times, I think it makes little sense to compare Math.SE to another site (simply because it uses the same software platform), General-level math sites are extremely unique beasts. But if someone attempts to do so it is fair game to point out flaws. | |
| May 14, 2019 at 22:37 | comment | added | quid Mod | @BillDubuque so answer the question then. What was the quantitative basis for your claim? | |
| May 14, 2019 at 22:37 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | @quid Sorry, I'm not going to "take back" anything. What an absurd way to angage in discussion! | |
| May 14, 2019 at 22:35 | comment | added | quid Mod | @BillDubuque please answer the specific question or take back your statement that SO is the only other site with comparable volume. If you maintain that SO and math.se separately are not really comparable to any other site, then that's an arguably more reasonable claim. But to say that SO is a the only site with comparable volume strikes me as untainable. | |
| May 14, 2019 at 22:33 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | @quid My contention is the Math.SE and SO face unique problems due to the much higher volume compared to all the other sites. | |
| May 14, 2019 at 22:25 | comment | added | quid Mod | @BillDubuque what is your criterion for volumes being "comparable"? I ask as the ration of questions SO to math.se is significantly above 10 (that is quite far away), while the ration of math.se with several other sites is significantly below 10. Still far away but closer. In absolute numbers SO has 2889k Q asked we have 216k Q asked then AU has 62k, SU has 53k, and there are several above 20k which is closer to us than we are to SO. | |
| May 14, 2019 at 21:46 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | @quid But compared to the only other site with comparable volume (StackOverflow) this site closes at about a 44% higher rate, viz. 16.6% vs. 11.5%. All the other sites are far too small volume to compare too. | |
| May 11, 2019 at 16:05 | comment | added | quid Mod | @user170039 it's not clear why you can't look this up yourself but there you go: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/321318/2018-a-year-in-closing For 2018, among the about 170 SE this one does barely make the Top 100 in closing percentage, 98th I think. Among the about 30 sites with more than 10k question during that year, it is about 20th and among the 18 sites under science it is 16th. Relative to other sites, we certainly do not close a lot rather the contrary. | |
| May 11, 2019 at 11:31 | comment | added | quid Mod | @onepound relative to some other SE sites few questions are closed on this site (even just restricted to new ones, yet of course in a relative sense). | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 8:54 | comment | added | quid Mod | I have fundamental difficulty to understand your comment. I said "if we want to find some sort of compromise it would seem relevant[...]" You completely ignore to the part I said I would find relevant and proceed to rant that there is no compromise. Well, yes, there is none. And it seems that you are not interested in finding one. Since you did not answer a simple question related to this, and instead continued to complain. Where did I say that it is not about deletions? I said I think it is relevant to distinguish the two Then I discussed closing and made a remark on deletion. | |
| Apr 28, 2019 at 22:47 | comment | added | Martin Argerami | Of course it's a rant. What kind of compromise is there, and by whom? The CRUDE people vote to close 20 times a day, every day, and nothing happens. I vote to keep open 20 times, once, and I get admonished and banned from reviewing. These people are destroying content, and the authors of said content are not even notified; how can you feel that's fair, at all? And I don't know what you think I ignored about deletions; your answer said that this is not about deletions, and I disagreed. | |
| Apr 28, 2019 at 21:58 | comment | added | quid Mod | Further, and maybe more to the point, OP mocked the activity of closing. Therefore I explained why I think it has some relevance and not all that much drawback (contrary to deletion where sometimes there is a significant drawback). This resulted in you contesting the arguments with not so great arguments, and dodging any further discussion with some non-argument. I'll also note that earlier explanations on why deletions do have some merit went basically unacknowledge. One cannot help put feel that there is no willingness at all to actually discuss anything. It's just thinly veiled ranting. | |
| Apr 28, 2019 at 21:50 | comment | added | quid Mod | @MartinArgerami well, if we want to find some sort of compromise it would seem relevant to know if for example for you the problem would be resolved if they did stop at closing. I mean to simply post STOP, which is basically what OP does, won't get you very far. The thread has some relevance as a document of a feeling of exasperation, but it's not really a contribution to a discussion that has the potential to lead to anything constructive; | |
| Apr 28, 2019 at 21:31 | comment | added | Martin Argerami | I fail to see your point. This thread is motivated by the CRUDE people deleting old questions that have good answers. They don't stop at closing, so I don't see where you are going with this. | |
| Apr 28, 2019 at 19:33 | comment | added | quid Mod | On the other point, of course the site also appreciates contributions to old threads. Yet, two things. First this would seem to suggest that we should strive to maintain the old threads and not be as dismissive as OP in mocking the idea that somebody might improve an old questions. (Since you seem to like badges there is archelogist for instance). Second, the discussion here is specifically about old threads that already have good answers. Sure somebody might add another good answer, but honestly that seems like a corner case to me and in any case not an ideal allocation of resources.. | |
| Apr 28, 2019 at 19:28 | comment | added | quid Mod | It's interesting to note that that you seem convinced that the old content does have a lot of impact as otherwise its deletion would not be an issue. I feel that to have it both ways is not possible. Obviously the impact of having old stuff closed will be limited, but I find it hard to believe that the influence is as negligible as you claim (especially relative to other effects we are discussing). | |
| Apr 28, 2019 at 19:26 | comment | added | quid Mod | Given that 90 percent of the sites traffic comes through search engines, I'd contest it's that much of a coner cases. But of course it's hard to know for sure. What we can and do know is that not that rarely precedence does get invoked. "But this other question etc." Thus, I stand by it there being value in current standard being also (at least in part) being applied to old content. (Of course somebody might disagree with current standards but that's a separate concern then.) | |
| Apr 28, 2019 at 18:41 | comment | added | Martin Argerami | "equate", not equation, sorry :D | |
| Apr 28, 2019 at 14:52 | comment | added | Martin Argerami | -1: It is reasonable to "almost equation closing and deleting", because that's precisely what the CRUDE people do. They close to delete, not to prevent new answers. Further, your first bullet sounds like a corner case; and your second one, at the very least, goes against the design of the site, where we have badges like "Reversal", "Revival", and "Necromancer". | |
| Apr 28, 2019 at 10:53 | history | answered | quidMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |