-5
$\begingroup$

There are 3 interrelated things I want to list here and then ask a question:

  1. It seems like (and there may be an official document that I am not aware of, to be transparent) downvote in meta is not the same as in the main site. The most common answer I have gathered from looking at older discussions is that a downvote on meta is a short-hand for disagreement (as opposed to poorly worded, no context, no attempt questions on the main site). I have no problems with this, as it is just a convention.

  2. There is no force on any member to answer a question on meta, whether they agree with the post (and in turn no compulsion to upvote something they agree with) or disagree with the post (most likely resulting in downvotes). I am somewhat ok with this policy in isolation.

  3. Community Bot deletes posts with no answers and some number of downvotes after some amount of wait time. I know and have read through the full list of criteria, but for the point I am making, this crude summary is sufficient. This is where points #1 and #2 above start to conflict. This auto deletion policy is very much in the spirit of the main site, where downvotes mean something else.

Given that mechanism #3 isn't doesn't differentiate the downvote convention between MSE and meta.MSE, what can be done about #1 and #2?

My thoughts: Influence the community to consider changing the convention of the alternate meaning of downvotes here (to be more along the lines of the definition on the main site) OR at least encourage users to post answers, even if brief, so that Bot doesn't delete posts so quickly. Influence/encouragement doesn't have the same effect as an official policy or automating mechanism to enforce certain steps, but it is better than nothing.

$\endgroup$
13
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve here. Roomba will only delete a question in a fairly limited set of circumstances, and meta questions will only be automatically deleted if (a) they have a negative score and no answers (after 30 days), or (b) they are closed with a nonpositive score and has no (good) answers. Hence the questions you are worried about have either been closed (which means that they probably should be deleted), or are basically abandoned. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Aug 20 at 18:24
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ It seems (to me) that inactive questions (e.g. questions which have earned downvotes and no other real interaction) probably should be deleted---downvoted with no answer likely indicates that the community is against some idea, or simply doesn't care. Again---what problem are you trying to solve, here? $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Aug 20 at 18:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Let's say 1 user disagrees with a proposal and gives a downvote. And let's say a good number of people agreed with the proposal, but they never bothered to upvote or answer (as there is no compulsion or incentive to do so). After 30 days, this post disappears. But if we either change the definition of what downvote means, the negative vote would not be there (unless it was worded poorly or was spam etc, which we are not talking about). Similarly if we encourage users to answer even if briefly (if they agree or disagree), this post would still be alive. That's what I am discussing $\endgroup$
    – Srini
    Commented Aug 20 at 18:32
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Again, I don't see the problem here. If people agree with an idea, but don't bother to upvote, then one can conclude that they don't actually care all that much. You seem to be describing a category of meta questions which, at best, elicit apathy. If people don't care, or are actively against, why preserve the question? You seem to be suggesting that the culture of Meta should be changed (it isn't clear how) in order to preserve questions which people demonstrably don't care about. Why? This seems like a non-issue, to me. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Aug 20 at 18:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Most people leave bad reviews on Yelp-type review websites when they feel strongly negatively about an experience. Much less people leave positive reviews even if they had a good experience. Most people don't leave any reviews at all. All of this can be mapped to the meta culture. And all of this is fine if the posts are just abandoned. But because closing and deletion is actively implemented, an ok (neither overly negative or positive response) post with a minor negative bias (I e. One negative vote)is going to be deleted (which is a near permanent action, without quoting exceptions). $\endgroup$
    – Srini
    Commented Aug 20 at 19:01
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Yelp is not a good comparison. Empirically, people upvote much more often on the SE network than they downvote. By a large ratio. Like, 100:1. There are many users who cast many upvotes, and never cast a downvote. But I am still not sure what problem you are trying to solve. You seem to want to preserve questions that no one has shown any real interest in. Why? $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Aug 20 at 19:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I should flip the question and ask "why not?". If you say that these show up in the Google searches over and above other useful results (and thus reducing the quality of the site), I would argue that the very fact that people are searching for something that matches the post is proof of it being interesting to someone. Maybe if you don't take a permanent action on it, it picks up some life in future. If you delete it, you preclude that possibility $\endgroup$
    – Srini
    Commented Aug 20 at 19:17
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ It is incumbent upon the person who is advocating for change to convince others that change should occur. In this discussion, I am asking you to convince me (and anyone else who might be skeptical). I am under no obligation to convince you that the status quo is good---it is your job to convince us that it isn't. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Aug 20 at 19:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And who said anything about Google results? $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Aug 20 at 19:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry for the presumption. Yes, it's on me to convince you. My argument is in the last line of my previous comment $\endgroup$
    – Srini
    Commented Aug 20 at 19:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And to be clear, permanent action is warranted on egregiously bad posts, spam, abusive behavior etc etc $\endgroup$
    – Srini
    Commented Aug 20 at 19:28
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Note, also, that this has been asked-and-answered on the main Meta site: meta.stackexchange.com/q/238858 . $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Aug 20 at 19:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note that 100:1 upvote:downvote ratio is somewhat exaggerated. data.stackexchange.com/meta.math/query/1410309/… You can see that for math.meta, it started somewhere like 9:1 in 2011, stabilized around 4:1 in the following years and in 2020-2024, it is close to 3:1 (although 2024 is still going on). Though the point that the voting pattern is unlike Yelp perhaps has some truth, the trend is not very good. I must add that I am not familiar with the query language syntax, so assuming that what I inferred is right. $\endgroup$
    – Srini
    Commented Aug 20 at 20:31

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

This was asked-and-answered on the main Meta in 2014:

There are a seemingly-endless number of bad ideas; we don't really need to archive them.

Of course... If someone writes up a really good explanation for why an idea is bad, that can be worth keeping around.

So if you see a meta question you don't want lost, write a good answer to it.

I think the last line is key - if you see a question and you think it is worth preserving, then give it an answer. It will then not be roomba'd unless it is closed (I think?).

I think there are two issues which the Roomba ignores, but where "writing an answer" is an obvious solution:

  1. A highly controversial question, which has say +49/-51 votes. This situation is discussed on the main meta here. It would be odd if such a question had no answers, but if you see one and you are worried that it will be Roomba'd, then write an answer.
  2. An idea which is frequently asked*, but which is always received poorly. Answering one such question to explain the reason for the bad reception would then allow future answers to be marked as duplicates of it, thus reducing workload.

*for some value of "frequently"

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .