Skip to main content

Timeline for Curation and cynicism: Or why Stack Overflow sometimes doesn't seem welcoming

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

50 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 17, 2020 at 12:56 comment added E_net4 Adding up to what Zoe said, you can see the kind of comments automatically captured by the heat detector on the Hydrant feed here. Filtering by true positives also allows you to see the pattern described in the comment above.
Jul 17, 2020 at 9:34 comment added Zoe - Save the data dump "This post suggests just a couple of approaches for helping solve the issue of comments meant to shame" - not all unwelcoming comments are meant to shame. Some are outright rude, and some times, people interpret completely neutral, non-rude comments as unwelcoming and express that by violating the CoC while accusing others of violating the CoC. You'll notice that pattern if you ever get into bot-assisted comment flagging
Jul 17, 2020 at 9:32 comment added Zoe - Save the data dump "What organization has ever scientifically proven a philosophical quote from the Buddha, or Confucius, or Marcus Aurelius - or, in this case, from AA?" - it has already been disproven by people by accident, Anxiety and depression are just two of the emotions that have been linked to anger. "if the aphorism is truly as powerful as clinical practice seems to suggest and AA seems to believe, " - again, it isn't.
Jul 17, 2020 at 9:30 comment added Zoe - Save the data dump "The result of collecting these "shame" ratings means Stack Overflow will be building a baseline of data that can be used to train shame sentiment algorithms which can then be tested across the communities." - that's not as easy. The welcoming bot, as far as I know, only runs on Stack Overflow because of one major barrier: one site's rude is another site's daily conversation. This especially applies to Interpersonal Skills, where they quite literally talk about human interaction. If a question happens to include anything related to shame, comments quoting the question could be wrongly deleted.
Jul 17, 2020 at 9:28 comment added Zoe - Save the data dump "You will no longer be able to unsee it - and you will see shaming in online communities everywhere" - it's not exclusively an online problem. Happens IRL too, but people seem more happy to ignore that aspect of it and blame the internet. "Imagine if we trained a new bot that gave a "shaming" comment score: a "shame bot."" - certain shaming comments classify as rude. We don't need two bots to classify a separate type of comments when the worst ones fall under a category we already have a bot and flags for.
Jul 17, 2020 at 9:26 comment added Zoe - Save the data dump "Recognizing shaming words in comments can be challenging" - yes, because some people are triggered by some words and find others fine in a mixed bucket. There's no linear formula that's able to say "this word is bad", because that's not always the case. If you go with the one size fits all approach on mental health related issues, you will end up excluding people, and getting their potential fixes ignored because "we found the solution for everything", even when that's provably not the case
Jul 17, 2020 at 9:24 comment added Zoe - Save the data dump "Some might also claim that avoiding comments that shame is not possible" - it is, but not because " People can choose to be shamed by anything" (although that is also true). Stack Overflow is an international site, and as such struggles with the same problem as the rest of the world: The language barrier. Some people might accidentally shame someone as a result, in part because the actual intent is lost to the language barrier, or is lost to the lack of being able to display emotions online. Again - not everyone intentionally shames other people, and assuming that is assuming bad faith
Jul 17, 2020 at 9:22 comment added Zoe - Save the data dump "Notice this statement is a mix of facts and adds judgements about those facts." - again, you flag in those cases. You're describing parts already outlined in the code of conduct, but adding a provably false link to the cause of it. "Some on Stack Overflow might argue shaming is needed to stop bad posting behavior." - who? Serious question, because I have not seen a single person arguing that shame is necessary to change behavior.
Jul 17, 2020 at 9:18 comment added Zoe - Save the data dump "Though science may not give us 100% certainty" - it can, provided enough time and resources, and already has. There being a link between shame and anger is true - shame being the only trigger for anger, or one of few, is absolutely not the case. You can find a lot of research linking other emotions to anger (and some times, in the other direction or in both directions) online.
Jul 17, 2020 at 9:11 comment added Zoe - Save the data dump Just so I'm abundantly clear here, I'm not saying shaming isn't a problem, but it's nowhere near as big a problem as you make it out to be. "We don't need to wait for AI sentiment technology." - no, because it already exists. "Stack Overflow can leverage the wisdom of the crowd. Stack Overflow can simply enable the crowd to rate comments on a scale for how much they seem to focus on shaming the poster. " - we have flags for a reason. If a comment violates the CoC, you flag
Jul 17, 2020 at 9:09 comment added Zoe - Save the data dump "Yes, even if solved, other problems will still remain - but it is worth answering the question whether this issue might be at the heart of many problems" - again, citation needed. I've seen low-rep users lash out at perfectly fine and neutral (as in non-borderline) comments and subsequentially gotten themselves correctly suspended. You're missing the extreme variation in responses, and you're implicitly implying only high-rep users are the problem. There's a lot more sides to this problem than that
Jul 17, 2020 at 9:06 comment added Zoe - Save the data dump "Yet, on deeper analysis, one can see that this statement is not meant to simply inform. It is also meant to shame." - now this is assuming bad faith. Not that it's a CoC violation anymore, but assuming bad faith is not a good idea. If you assume people are out to get you, that's what it's going to appear as. It's a bit like discovering a new word, and suddenly, it's everywhere and you can't understand how you missed it. Assume people are out to shame, and the comment will look like it's meant to shame. You still can't know what OP intended.
Jul 17, 2020 at 8:56 comment added Zoe - Save the data dump "The original poster of the question is left to decide whether the commenter meant they were too stupid or too lazy to write a good question." - not always. Some people interpret stuff literally and don't read too much into the sentiment. Don't oversimplify the variation in human responses
Jul 17, 2020 at 8:55 comment added Zoe - Save the data dump " It is an unnecessary word. You can ask yourself - why did the commenter feel compelled to add it." - "exactly" is a modifier. "It tells you exactly where it is" means "you'll find the exact source", not "you might find something leading to the source". It's being explicit about whether it's there, or if you have to pull the programming equivalent of sacrificing 5 goats and finishing the final boss to find the problem
Jul 17, 2020 at 7:15 history edited Praxiteles CC BY-SA 4.0
added 1156 characters in body
Jul 17, 2020 at 5:32 history edited Praxiteles CC BY-SA 4.0
added 971 characters in body
Jul 17, 2020 at 4:18 history edited Praxiteles CC BY-SA 4.0
added 104 characters in body
Jul 17, 2020 at 4:09 history edited Praxiteles CC BY-SA 4.0
added 104 characters in body
Jul 17, 2020 at 0:21 comment added Shog9 I find your ideas intreguing, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Also, while I'm on the fence about AA, I've known folks who've found group therapy helpful and thus am unwilling to dismiss attempts out of hand; I've yet to hear of a completely effective approach to treating alcoholism. My advice would be to focus on your theory and ways in which its efficacy might be tested.
Jul 17, 2020 at 0:17 history undeleted Travis J
Benjamin W.
Shog9
Jul 16, 2020 at 22:28 history edited Praxiteles CC BY-SA 4.0
added 1452 characters in body
Jul 16, 2020 at 22:22 history edited Praxiteles CC BY-SA 4.0
added 1452 characters in body
Jul 16, 2020 at 22:17 history edited Praxiteles CC BY-SA 4.0
added 1452 characters in body
Jul 16, 2020 at 20:25 history deleted Ian Ringrose
oguz ismail
Zoe - Save the data dump 		via Vote
Jul 16, 2020 at 20:25 comment added Zoe - Save the data dump Human emotions are extremely complex, and because there's 7.5 billion or whatever humans now, the variation in response to various feelings is extremely diverse. Putting everyone in a box doesn't work here, nor will it make the situation better. I said "one size does not fit all" earlier - it might help some people, but others will still lash out. Turning a complex issue into something overly simplified when it's nowhere near that simple will only make the situation worse.
Jul 16, 2020 at 20:23 comment added Zoe - Save the data dump As for AA, keep in mind that it's the very same program that's quite honestly extremely influenced by religion, and not facts. I'm not arguing with its effects on people's lives, but I will push back hard against claims they make that can be scientifically disproven. Hyperbolic wording ("all") makes this super easy - one link connecting anger to another emotion is enough to break your entire statement, and here you go: mentalhelp.net/blogs/the-link-between-anger-and-stress psychologytoday.com/us/blog/overcoming-destructive-anger/202004/…
Jul 16, 2020 at 20:17 comment added Zoe - Save the data dump "If AA is right" - they're not. Shame does help contribute to anger in some cases, but saying that shame is the root of all anger is like calling water dangerous because 100% of anything that drinks or otherwise absorbs water eventually dies. Correlation != causation, and with emotions, one size does absolutely not fit all. Everyone responds differently to different emotions, including shame. Some people bottle up anger until that one final drop hits, and unleashes everything. You never know what the person or people you're talking to have been through, or is going through for that matter
Jul 16, 2020 at 19:15 comment added NoDataDumpNoContribution @talex "It propose to use technology yet to be invented." Yes, but it doesn't seem too far-fetched. The company has achieved something similar with the unfriendly comments robot. This seems to be a bit more elaborate, but not totally impossible. It would probably still be a lot of work, but the company would have the resources to go this way. They also identified comments as the root cause of bad vibrations, as far as I remember. I think there are still votes and low quality content, but it might be worth some time and energy.
Jul 16, 2020 at 18:22 history edited Praxiteles CC BY-SA 4.0
added 427 characters in body
Jul 16, 2020 at 18:12 comment added NoDataDumpNoContribution I've read this answer and I find it helpful. I think it is a very strong notion. Of course, everyone can have a bad day. And it's not really sufficient. Even if everyone would write only super neutral comments all the time, they could still be factually wrong or the one they are directed at could still not understand them or fail to act on them. Downvotes and close votes would still be downvotes and close votes. Low quality content would still be low quality content. StackOverflow might always be seen as unwelcoming by some just because it has votes.
Jul 16, 2020 at 14:53 history edited Peter Mortensen CC BY-SA 4.0
Third iteration [<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/preeminent#Adjective>].
Jul 16, 2020 at 14:46 history edited Peter Mortensen CC BY-SA 4.0
Second iteration [<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/takeaway#Noun> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/crowdsource#Verb>]. Completed the expansion.
Jul 16, 2020 at 14:36 history edited Praxiteles CC BY-SA 4.0
added 36 characters in body
Jul 16, 2020 at 14:28 history edited Praxiteles CC BY-SA 4.0
added 36 characters in body
Jul 16, 2020 at 14:23 history edited Praxiteles CC BY-SA 4.0
added 36 characters in body
Jul 16, 2020 at 14:19 history edited Peter Mortensen CC BY-SA 4.0
Active reading [<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-step_program#Twelve_Steps> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus_disease_2019>]. Expanded.
Jul 16, 2020 at 13:59 history edited Praxiteles CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 4 characters in body
Jul 16, 2020 at 13:53 history edited Praxiteles CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 4 characters in body
Jul 16, 2020 at 13:53 history edited E_net4 CC BY-SA 4.0
remove meta-commentary about downvotes
Jul 16, 2020 at 13:49 history edited Praxiteles CC BY-SA 4.0
added 2053 characters in body
Jul 16, 2020 at 7:27 comment added talex @Praxiteles I personally find you answer interesting, but not very useful. It propose to use technology yet to be invented. As for down-votes my guess is: it looks like you stepped into the trap you just described yourself. You shamed moderators, they got angry and down-voted.
Jul 16, 2020 at 7:26 comment added Travis J I don't see why this would be a question, as it directly answers the question. The question posits why SO doesn't seem welcoming, and gives examples of curators being cynical. The question even goes so far as to state that cynical comments, while perhaps not ideal, should be listened to; essentially encouraging such behavior. This answer directly addresses the situation, by showing how cynicism, a form of shaming, can have adverse effects and cause undue problems in social situations. In my opinion, this is an insightful response to the overall situation. Shaming is unfriendly or unkind.
Jul 16, 2020 at 5:37 history edited Praxiteles CC BY-SA 4.0
added 83 characters in body
Jul 16, 2020 at 5:36 comment added Praxiteles @HereticMonkey Thanks for the helpful comment. It was a great concern of mine that moderators might feel this post was about them and feel shame rather than recognize Is the small minority of others out there who are tone deaf to how to keep their posts shame-free. That said, I am somewhat disappointed to see all the downvotes - as it seems to be such an under-appreciated issue on SO. It is like watching a community wound itself psychologically and not fully understand how or why. It would be great if the down-voters would explain why.
Jul 16, 2020 at 5:23 history edited Praxiteles CC BY-SA 4.0
added 1436 characters in body
Jul 16, 2020 at 4:55 comment added Praxiteles @Machavity I am intrigued by your answer. How might this best be turned into a question?
Jul 16, 2020 at 1:44 comment added Heretic Monkey FYI, no moderators were involved with that comment. Just users. Moderators (and employees) have diamonds next to their user names. Best to stick with words that are on point, like "commentator" in this case, if you're aiming for less shaming.
Jul 15, 2020 at 23:25 comment added philipxy The quoted comment is "meant" to shame only in the unhelpful trivial sense that the commenter intends for the poster to notice that their post was problematic & can reasonably expect that once the poster notices they might feel shame according to their own evaluation of their posting as irrational/illogical/thoughtless. There is no avoiding this if the poster is to be helped. You are shooting the messenger. Within the AA analogy, the poster can't be helped until they admit to themselves that they have a posting problem.
Jul 15, 2020 at 22:22 comment added Machavity Mod I think this would work better as a separate question, rather than an answer. There's a lot to unpack, and comments are a poor place to do that. It's a well written question.
Jul 15, 2020 at 22:17 history answered Praxiteles CC BY-SA 4.0
toggle format