Timeline for Enforcement of Quality Standards
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
39 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 11, 2021 at 21:14 | comment | added | Theo Bendit | @TobyMak I think the trust issue with our answerers is, in a sense, an overflow from our much deeper trust issue with our askers. They are the "feet" of our site, driving us forward. I guess it was inevitable that this toxic mistrust has spread up through our body (our answerers) and will next attack the brain (our moderators, official and unofficial). Welcome to the beginning of the end indeed. | |
| Nov 11, 2021 at 21:09 | comment | added | Theo Bendit | @TobyMak +1 Well said. The lack of trust is very much a problem and I think the John Stuart Mill quote in the comments is particularly apt (I've had similar thoughts, but have been unable to put them so eloquently). "Dead dogma" perfectly describes not just the quality standards, but indeed the perceived purpose of this site and its role within the mathematics community. Much reference is made to Jeff Atwood's initial vision for Stack Exchange, but sites like Code Golf and Puzzling have revealed this to be more flexible over the many years since. Perhaps our purpose has evolved as well? | |
| Aug 29, 2021 at 9:23 | comment | added | postmortes | @HagenvonEitzen how does having a bad reputation make someone/thing "be valued"? The problem isn't with the word (your dictionary should provide as one of the definitions "character as generally described") but that people assume that a large number allows for a moral judgement :) I do agree that 'experience points' might be more useful -- though we do see high-rep-worth users who appear to be oblivious to how the site functions on things like review queues, deletions and other basics. | |
| Aug 29, 2021 at 9:01 | comment | added | Hagen von Eitzen | @postmortes Actually, the view that "reputation" is considered something completely different than "being valued" amuses me, and should amuse anyone with a dictionary. Perhaps it is time to rename those point into "experience points"? Then again, the counter does go up by another user expressing that they value a contributed question or answer ... | |
| Jul 27, 2021 at 10:06 | comment | added | Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer | Because once we care, we find a way to talk , we fight, but we understand each other and , even if only slightly more willingly, compromise. Attitudes towards closure-reopening, PSQs, homework-cheating, on-topic question controversies (contest, conjectures etc.) all have been discussed on meta. It all requires an incredibly open mind, and from each and every participating individual. This is the only way I can see to achieve harmony. | |
| Jul 27, 2021 at 9:49 | comment | added | Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer | @TobyMak It's going to take a shift in thought, honestly, for everybody. For us to accept the genuine difficulties faced by askers who are scared that their question will be closed, for potential answerers who have similar sentiments , and for those who do see their questions closed/deleted with the answer. To accept their background and how they think what they are doing is improving the site. For the other side to accept that we are a small group of people doing our best to keep that signal-noise ratio down. To be honest, I just want everybody to care. That's pretty much it. | |
| Jul 27, 2021 at 1:20 | comment | added | Toby Mak | @amWhy Because I've changed my stance on this issue since I wrote it. How else can I respond to comments saying I've ignored the compromise on meta? | |
| Jul 26, 2021 at 15:01 | comment | added | amWhy | Toby: I've read through all your comments as well as those in the chat room for amWhy and Teresa. The comments in the chat room are more insightful so I'll be replying to those instead. Why not answer the question I actually asked re: your response to Xander's post? Everything you say after the statement quoted from you here, has nothing to do with your answer to @Xander's post. Please stay on topic. | |
| Jul 26, 2021 at 5:51 | comment | added | Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer | The short of my previous comments : (1) Get more people to do meta tasks, and balance out the lack of diversity in interpretation and application of the guidelines (2) Find a way to communicate with "influential" users beyond suspensions and comments, because they are ignoring comments, may/may not learn from suspensions (which are then seen in bad light by others) and finally refuse to abide by the compromise (ref. Jyrki). If anybody can do either of these tasks, they are bringing two polar opposites of the community together. That person is a true hero(ine). | |
| Jul 26, 2021 at 5:45 | comment | added | Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer | @TobyMak And furthermore, because our community is so small, we could miss finer details regarding closure and opening. We just need more people to debate CURED tasks. But who will do it? Most people aren't bothered about others' content, and are sacrosanct about theirs. So when we try to enforce something, we need critical feedback, INCLUDING the fact that sometimes we are NOT receptive to feedback (as at least one person has remarked). This may be a person-to-person choice, but I am willing to change some things I do as a reviewer if I know that it isn't useful. | |
| Jul 26, 2021 at 5:40 | comment | added | Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer | @TobyMak I want to discuss, I want to debate. But with who? On CURED, say, we've got a small community that must stretch for a large number of tasks. If we agree on one decision, and we are visiting multiple questions (that's the load) and implement that particular decision, then that one agreed upon decision is enforced. That's how it is. So we have to debate : but nobody wants to debate unless it's their own question that's under threat : and after some time, it just comes down to finger pointing and name calling. There's no need for CURED if the community can do the job... | |
| Jul 26, 2021 at 5:34 | comment | added | Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer | @TobyMak Your apology is fully accepted by me and I would like to apologize as well if you found anything in these chats that was out of order. As Jyrki will tell you, we will never quite hear from some users about why they seem to post answers to any question that is a PSQ : and unfortunately, these users are also the MOST influential and high output users on site. Which means that others are extremely likely to follow their lead, without really knowing why they do what they do, and if it's right/wrong/black-and-white in the larger schema. That Pied Piper relationship is an issue. | |
| Jul 26, 2021 at 5:30 | comment | added | Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer | @TobyMak I request you to talk to other like minded people, because there still is very much a lot of meaning in what you have said on many occasions, and I do admit that there could be rectifications in the implementation of EoQS. Where I do not stand back is in admitting that enforcement does a better job than letting everyone decide for themselves (in fact, everyone was deciding for themselves till now : so why did the idea of enforcement crop up at all if nothing was wrong?). Also , that chatroom is, let's say private , so I'm a little unhappy that a chat from it was leaked. | |
| Jul 26, 2021 at 3:07 | comment | added | Toby Mak | As John Stuart Mill said, societies stagnate when the tyranny of the majority prevails and when they create inflexible rules that can neither be discussed nor questioned (dead dogma). This requires that we investigate why users are still posting answers to PSQs rather than assuming they all have evil intentions. In short, please be civil and make an effort to understand the other side like I have done, no matter how hard it is. | |
| Jul 26, 2021 at 3:04 | comment | added | Toby Mak | However, there are times where deciding whether a post is a PSQ isn't that clear-cut, and so we should move away from black-and-white thinking. From my experience, there are around 50% of questions where the users have tried something (in one or two sentences) but it isn't enough to fully provide context. If we close these questions as well, does that not incentivise users to be lazy and to post straight PSQs, as those will also be closed? Many users have spent effort into understanding how our site works and it would not be fair to negate that. | |
| Jul 26, 2021 at 2:50 | comment | added | Toby Mak | I am sorry for my behaviour and I pledge not to repeat it again. This policy has been a great way for users with different opinions to open up, and so let me remind everyone to act in good faith instead of branding them as evil. For a long time, I thought that I was in compliance with the policy because my posts did not receive many downvotes and if the question was deleted (taking down my answer), I assumed that it was the questioner's fault. If this policy is what it takes for more users to finally pay attention, I will stand by it. | |
| Jul 26, 2021 at 2:42 | comment | added | Toby Mak | @amWhy If you believe that the site is unmoderated and that the mods aren't helping to enforce the policy, why not call a new moderator election. Last time there was an election, I got the impression that the site was both overly moderated and under moderated: i.e just right. The questions for the candidates should focus on their views on this policy and how they will implement it should they become a moderator. | |
| Jul 26, 2021 at 2:40 | comment | added | Toby Mak | Yes, I've now realised that many high-rep users have been posting against the policy. Teresa Lisbon is right that "people are defending the answerers of the high-rep users because they've sort of gotten used to their content being a staple on site" (including myself) and I agree that the site will run better without these users. Indeed, since the policy has been introduced, there has been a marked reduction in PSQs and this can only be a good thing for SE: more time to focus on quality questions and better interaction between users. | |
| Jul 26, 2021 at 2:36 | comment | added | Toby Mak | I've read through all your comments as well as those in the chat room for amWhy and Teresa. The comments in the chat room are more insightful so I'll be replying to those instead. | |
| Jul 25, 2021 at 17:08 | comment | added | amWhy | And, Toby, you received the message based on ample evidence provided to mods via flags occurring through community moderation, just as downvotes and delete votes are delivered. Mods do not act arbitrarily; they act only when sufficient evidence (from community members/moderators_, indicates quite convincingly, that action must be taken. Please stop finding scapegoats to blame and attack, instead, listen to the feedback sent to you, and think of ways to improve your behavior on this site. | |
| Jul 25, 2021 at 17:03 | comment | added | amWhy | I honestly think that your comment "In short, it demonstrated a lack of care and sincerity, a top-down approach which stands at odds with Stack Exchange's founding philosophy of community moderation and decision-making through meta sites" best describes your behavior on this site this past year. Not only does your approach stand at odds to SE, as the message you received appropriately describes, it stands at odds with math.se. | |
| Jul 24, 2021 at 13:45 | comment | added | Jyrki Lahtonen | If you think the site has been going downhill for two months. I think the site has been going downhill for 8 years. With the homeworker solvers club collecting rep and turning the site away from its original purpose. | |
| Jul 24, 2021 at 11:38 | comment | added | Jyrki Lahtonen | Also, I disagree with the new normal - rant in your last paragraph. The problem has existed nearly from the beginning. A kind of compromise was reached after much heated debate many years ago. But it was not enforced. When pleas and information campaigns about the compromise, ignored by more and more high volume answerers, failed to make any kind of an impression, this is what you get. In other words, you made your own bed... | |
| Jul 24, 2021 at 11:33 | comment | added | Jyrki Lahtonen | I want to (one more time seems to be required) comment on the use of presumed guilty... THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL COURT. The policy is more about keeping a contract. If you prefer a sport analogy, the disagreement is more about some group of soccer players choosing to ignore the rule on off-side, and then acting bewildered when others complain that most of the goals you scored should not count. Or, if you prefer baseball, some thinking that it is totally ok for the pitcher to balk and/or ignore infield fly rules. | |
| Jul 23, 2021 at 17:58 | comment | added | Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer | @bobby.608 Perhaps we need to talk more, but somewhere else. I can defend what I wrote there (and yes, I wrote it, I admit that) , but for that you will have to hear me out. I do not want to win you back, I just want to let you know that there was a reason why I let out a certain emotion there with a strong choice of words. Then again, you are free to make your choices. I just want a chance to defend myself. | |
| Jul 23, 2021 at 17:31 | comment | added | Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer | I do agree with many points presented here, namely that we want to be more welcoming. But the truth is that if we think about what, let's say, 90% of outsiders think of this site, which is a homework mill, it's not what we , the minority, think of it as. So of course it was always a minority fighting against a majority. I do want to trust more users and their judgement, but look at the average user coming in post-pandemic and tell me that the most popular opinion isn't "hey, just give me my answer and move on". We are together, EoQS,non-EoQS etc. in fighting against "hand-me-answer" attitudes | |
| Jul 20, 2021 at 20:46 | comment | added | Jyrki Lahtonen | @Yorch That has also been explained in meta many times. Expand the list of answers on your profile page. At the bottom there is a link titled recently deleted answers (I think that only the user in question can see it, but I may be wrong about that). Also, if the deleted answer was recent, the rep points it earned are deducted, so users can tell that something unusual has happened as that can be noticed in many ways. Of course, it is possible that such users don't keep an eye on their rep score at all. | |
| Jul 20, 2021 at 20:39 | comment | added | Asinomás | @JyrkiLahtonen I can give you a ton of problems, but here's one to get started: many users don't even realize that their answer dissapeared. | |
| Jul 20, 2021 at 20:20 | comment | added | Jyrki Lahtonen | @bobby.608 For your information: Community moderators cannot move your answer to the duplicate thread. No one can, that functionality does not exist. Only you yourself can delete the mistakenly posted answer and repost it as an answer in the duplicate target. That delete/copy/paste takes only a few seconds, so what's the problem? The diamond moderators can merge two threads, but that requires the two versions to use identical notation (among other things), and is a bit delicate to manage, so it's rarely done. | |
| Jul 20, 2021 at 19:16 | comment | added | bobby.608 | Good point. I quit after receiving a timed suspension and seeing a quality answer of mine be deleted because the question turned out to be a duplicate. The ease at which my valuable content was destroyed (instead of moved to the other question) triggered me. Occasionally I check to see if anything changed. Recently I saw actively moderating users cheer when a 200k user (Yves Daoust) deleted their account. Such disrespect for user's time and efforts as well as holding on to this QS policy will not win me back. | |
| Jul 20, 2021 at 18:51 | comment | added | quid Mod | This was a local decision and has nothing to do with SE per se. The "nothing learned" is besides the point. | |
| Jul 20, 2021 at 11:17 | comment | added | Jyrki Lahtonen | While the problem can probably communicated by clearer message I totally disagree with the sentiment of your first paragraph. The site is a mess exactly because the relevant users always posted what they wanted. Ignoring the compromise reached in meta after a discussion spanning several years. Also, the stricter enforcement was well advertised in advance. And not in a bulletin board in Proxima Centauri but in a featured meta post. If you have other ways of making these users comply with the compromise rule, you have had many years to suggest one. You still can! | |
| Jul 20, 2021 at 9:49 | comment | added | KReiser | I agree that this form email could add a little more detail. In the spirit of adding more information to the conversation, I would like to point out a SEDE query about answers to closed questions which could help provide some of that. I don't mean to imply that every answer to a closed question is a mortal sin or anything like that (I have a few such answers myself, as do most active users), but I would worry a bit if my proportion of such answers started getting a bit too high. | |
| Jul 20, 2021 at 8:47 | comment | added | user1729 | I agree with your criticism of the email. I think taking the time to write to fewer users in more detail (including five, say, specific posts) is better than messaging more users with no detail. (Or even something which is obviously generic, like "lots of your answers have been brought to our attention regarding the EoQS, which may be because of...") | |
| Jul 20, 2021 at 8:10 | history | edited | Toby Mak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 76 characters in body
|
| Jul 20, 2021 at 8:09 | comment | added | Toby Mak | And now what I've written doesn't really make sense. As you can tell, this isn't directly related to the policy but it's indicative of how I feel the site has been heading in a worse direction recently. | |
| Jul 20, 2021 at 8:07 | comment | added | Toby Mak | It's not reputation but the people who do the most meta tasks (closing/reopening and so on), and I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. Originally, I wanted to write reputation but there's the problem that you've mentioned. | |
| Jul 20, 2021 at 8:06 | comment | added | postmortes | I am curious only: you've written "...the accounts of several high-ranking users have since been placed in timed suspension. But by barring our most valued users from contributing..." and I've seen similar statements from other people. What criteria are you using to decide that they're "most valued"? I assume it's not reputation, since it's clear that anyone can gain a lot of reputation, deservedly or not, by answering PSQs and duplicate questions. | |
| Jul 20, 2021 at 8:01 | history | answered | Toby Mak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |