Timeline for Every "close" has its thorn: replace "close" with "on hold" for the first five days
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 22, 2013 at 16:58 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Two things to consider there... #1: takers - the proverbial "help vampires" - tend to avoid putting serious effort back into the communities they attach to by definition. #2: there's imbalance in the system itself between privileges granted to folks who ask and who answer: the reputation (and thus privileges) granted for upvotes on questions is half that for upvotes on answers. | |
| May 22, 2013 at 13:21 | comment | added | Olin Lathrop | @Shog9: That sounds nice in principle, but how do you get around the problem of this "solid core" shifting to more recently-joined users over time who identify themselves with those being turned away due to writing bad questions than the original core that cares about high quality discussions? Put another way, the newer users see themselves more as takers than givers, and identify with other takers. How do you prevent them from becoming the majority of this solid core you talk about? If the site is run hostile to the givers, then the givers eventually leave and nobody is left with anything. | |
| May 22, 2013 at 13:06 | comment | added | Olin Lathrop | @Jeff: My point is that it's not good to soften the language a bit. | |
| May 22, 2013 at 0:24 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood StaffMod | I don't feel that "on hold" versus "closed" -- particularly if the wording reverts to closed after five days -- is really that big a change. And as I am sure @shog9 knows, choice of words matters a lot more than you'd think.. look at all these expensive "entitlements" our congressmen are giving to those hungry poor people, for example! It might be good to soften the language a bit, but bear in mind the actual process of closing is basically identical. | |
| May 21, 2013 at 23:47 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | I gotta give you some props here, because you hit on something I think a lot of folks miss: there is a rather well-worn pattern that forums follow. That said, a very large part of SE's design - both the software itself and the culture surrounding it - are aimed squarely at subverting this pattern. A small admin team will never respond quickly enough to prevent the inevitable decline (either from low-quality posts from an influx of new users, or the backlash caused by it); a solid core of invested users might, if given the tools to do so constructively. So that's the area where we invest. | |
| May 21, 2013 at 23:11 | comment | added | syneticon-dj | The "why" has been explained at lengths in Jaydles' question. You seem to keep forgetting that while "read the rules" or "RTFM" might seem like a sound advice, to a newcomer who does not know about "the rules" or is drowning in the 50,000 pages reference manual things might appear not as easy. Which is very likely the reason he is reaching out for help. Just hammering those questions with a "closed, goe awway!" is ... well, not constructive as it basically does not help anyone. | |
| May 21, 2013 at 22:36 | history | answered | Olin Lathrop | CC BY-SA 3.0 |