"If it looks like or is seen as a rant"... That's only true if the the ones who judge it so have 20/20 vision and abide by the correct definition when using the term. I've seen too many meta posts across the network in which the label is over-used and applied in situations where it does not apply (including e.g., when a comment is left by someone who disagrees with a call to change something calling the question a rant, and then goes on to rant against the OP).

You are assuming that every time any user comments or judges a post to be a "rant" and says so, the accusation is appropriate? It is sometimes not an appropriate assessment of a post (question or answer). I just think we need to be more explicit in, e.g., FAQ, or metas, re: the definition of "rant", and tighten the domain in which it is applied. That's all.

@Namaste: I do not see this as a particularly pressing problem. I personally have rarely seen something called a rant inappropriately. Or at least, I've rarely seen it used indefensibly. At the end of the day, there is no better term for rants than "rants". There is no better way to get across the idea that the post is not constructive in an over-emotional, hyperbolic way than the word "rant". Anything else would just be a longer euphemism; it wouldn't be any less harmful.

"Nothing is better than just persisting with the status quo," @NicolBolas ? That belief becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. "Veto any and all changes" mindlessly ensures that what you endorse persists. Pretty much the the status quo that's the norm on MSE. I have not endorsed abandoning use of the term "rant", only restricting its usage to when the term actually is legit.

@Namaste: ""Veto any and all changes" mindlessly" Considering that there was nothing "mindless" in what I did, I contest your characterization of the conversation. I did not agree that your assessment of the use of the term was accurate. That's not "mindless"; that's merely using my own personal experience. Just as you used your personal experience to inform your opinion. The status quo in this case is fine, not mindlessly, but because the argument for changing it is not sufficient to warrant such a change.

@NicolBolas and DanBron It is likely that your are defending your own comments in which you used the term "rant", and probably rightly so. I'm not suggesting that you have done so inappropriately. One needs only to search, say 10 sites on SE, as well as search MSE using the term "rant" to find its overuse. That neither of you ever bothered to actually search out and test your hypotheses, proclaimed to be "the truth", is on you, not me. Long term users can be just as complacent as 1st time users. Unfortunately, usually it's only some long-term users that act as though they "know it all".

@Namaste: "That neither of you ever bothered to actually search out and test your hypotheses, proclaimed to be "the truth", is on you, not me." That's not how "burden of proof" works. You are the one who wants a change, therefore you are the one who must put forth evidence to support that change. Simply saying "do some searches" is not evidence. Furthermore, I rather suspect that any such evidence you find will ultimately result in a disagreement on what each of us considered a valid use of the word "rant".

@Namaste: Also, if you're going to continue arguing for this, please do so in an answer, not in comments. A place where you can actually put some sizable evidence.

@NicolBolas Typical response from someone from among some "long-term users" who play "king of the mountain" on SE.

@Namaste: I asked you to put your money where your mouth is. You refused and would prefer to play games of name calling rather than put forth evidence for your position. If you had evidence, you'd present it. Plus, I just did a search for "rant" on MSE, and I found basically nothing of what you describe in the first 50 questions. So if it's so easy to find... where is it? But I guess its easier for you to just dismiss what we're saying as people playing "king of the mountain" or whatever, rather than take responsibility for your own arguments and positions.

I'll challenge you to do the same, @Nicol: "Please post an answer, not merely comments. A place where you can actually support, with sizable evidence, your default to "can't be bothered."

@Namaste: I don't need to, since the answer we're commenting on already says more or less what needs to be said. Also, you forget how the burden of proof works again: it is you who needs to build support for a change. Changes shouldn't happen just because you say so; you must substantiate the reasoning for them.

@Nicol My aren't you quick to judge and jump to conclusions. You haven't aloud me any more than 25 minutes to write an answer??? So I refused your request???

You choose to respond to my request with a comment that seemed entirely dismissive of the need for you to substantiate your position. My feeling is that, if you were writing an answer, you wouldn't have bothered with the comment, since the answer would be far more important and would say what needed to be said.

@Namaste But hey, if your intent is to post an answer, that's great.

@NicolBolas I started to much earlier today, and started to again three hours ago. But my experience on MSE (mostly on the sidelines, though I have 9 years of experience on the SE network) leaves me feeling somewhat reluctant because of what I perceive as a hostile climate on MSE to honest, earnest requests to revisit some word or some policy (and I'm not referring to responses to full-fledged rants, or to posts that are entirely off topic.) Yes, that likely makes me a wimp.

I find that MSE is particularly hostile to ideas that are one or more of the following:

1) Ideas posted in apparent ignorance of prior history of discussions. MSE is very old, and most things have already been talked to death.

So pulling out the same tired, repeated arguments, without adding anything substantial isn't well received.

2) Ideas which would cause more work for curators than we expect from non-curators.

3) Ideas which force curators to change behavior that is generally seen as legitimate, in deference to people whose contributions are... let's say "of dubious or unknown merit". This is a different form of #2, but is distinct enough to need its own bullet point.

4) Ideas which are certain to make it harder to get rid of the ever increasing tide of trash questions.

5) Ideas which redefine the concept of "good question", such that questions which produce information of dubious merit or utility are considered "good" rather than those which help the stated purpose of the site as a database of knowledge.

6) Overall, any idea that falls under the notion of making SE sites into "help desks": things which prioritize the helping of the OP specifically, rather than things which build an easily searchable database of problems and solutions.

At the end of the day, do whatever you feel is right, but we are trying to keep SE from falling into disrepair and delapidation. And debates over whether a post that is ranting should be called as such doesn't feel productive towards that end.

Thanks for you input and perspective, @Nicol. I've avidly been devoted to the goal you state in your second to last sentence. But I disagree with your last sentence. The asker of the question about use of the term "rant" has been a member of the SE network for at least nine years, and has earned >20K rep on at least five SE sites. He is not ignorant about the history of the use of the term on the SE network.

It doesn't matter how much rep the user has earned; that doesn't make the question any more useful. I guess it comes down to what you consider to be the important problems on SE. And people calling ranting posts "rants" is, as far as I'm concerned, not one of them.

Not even close.

I get frustrated when users/people engaged in a long-standing practice, after an honest and informed suggestion has been made, in hopes of re-evaluation, it is summarily rejected by users who think they know "best". This has been a problem throughout human history. Or to assert their superiority, or to follow the masses deemed "in the elite club." I see no reason not to assume "good faith", and even a bit of honest reflection on the question. Too many regulars on MSE, with lots of rep, ...

That right there is the problem. You leap from our stated position of "we remain unconvinced of the utility of this" to "well, you just summarily rejected it". Basically, your assumption is that the only possible reason people would not agree with this "honest and informed suggestion" is that they're trying to "assert their superiority" or "follow the masses deemed "in the elite club.""

...certainly not most, strut around on the site, through comments and votes, sometimes answers, as they are a gatekeeper among elite gatekeepers, all of which are the only ones worth listening to and voting for, or only they "know". I'm sorry to say that, and I'm not describing you. But many regulars on MSE need to take some responsibility the behavior they exhibit, and its contribution to persons who understandingly have experience it and come to believe META is Murder.

Why can you not accept the possibility that... we just don't buy it? Why does it have to be more than that?

@NicolBolas No, I didn't say that, but there are some who behave that way. Certainly not all, as I made clear.

And then there's the dodging. Having made your broad claim, you then try to hide behind weasel words. It's "not all", but you refuse to actually call anyone in particular out.

If it's "not all" and "not most"... where is it and who's doing it?

I can see the argument that calling a rant a rant is unfriendly. The flip side, however, is that we start straying into that, "welcoming language" debate again, though, where actually calling a spade a spade is unfriendly, unwelcoming, and just Should Not Be Done.

This strays into curation; curation is inherently unfriendly to users. Do we stop doing so because it's unfriendly?

At what point do you put the goal of curation ahead of that of being welcoming? There's gotta be a line somewhere.

@NicolBolas I didn't come here to argue for the sake of arguing, @Nicol. But you've already made up your mind that I'm just someone creating "unnecessary" waves within in the "dynasty" you helped create and want to protect from change. period.

@fbueckert Did you read any of my comments on this question. I do believe that it's fine to call a duck, a duck. But it's not okay to call all birds, ducks. Simple as that.

And that right there is why you will never get anyone to change. Because you automatically assume that any resistence to a "honest and informed suggestion" is made from a disengenuous position of trying to protect the site "from change. period".

@Namaste People are allowed to disagree what constitutes a rant.

In short, you're not showing good faith to the opposition. You assume that they're resistant to change to be resistant to change.

That's...kind of part and parcel of being part of a community.

@NicolBolas You keep putting words in my mouth. Stop doing that!!

Then stop telling me what I've made up my own mind about.

@fbueckert indeed.

Disagreement on that can lead to healthy debate. So long as both sides are open to a differing definition.

@NicolBolas You have way overgeneralized and presume to know what I think but never said.

Personally, I feel that softening feedback too much leads to useless comments.

@fbueckert Wholeheartedly agree.

I don't know how to take what you've said as anything other than what you've said. If you say:

"I get frustrated when users/people engaged in a long-standing practice, after an honest and informed suggestion has been made, in hopes of re-evaluation, it is summarily rejected by users who think they know "best"."

Good bye, @Nicol.

So I absolutely support calling a rant a rant.

I must assume that, in the context of this discussion, you mean that the people arguing against you are doing exactly that.

That they're users "who think they know 'best'" and are merely "summarily rejecting" ideas.

@NicolBolas Yawn! Never said that.

I QUOTED YOU!

Why would you say that if you don't believe it?

@NicolBolas There are some users who act that way. I never said all long-term users do!!

Why bring them up in the context of this discussion if you aren't trying to claim that's what is happening here?

@Nicol Please pay attention only to the comment about which I am responding. You can do that by hovering over my comment.

@Namaste Okay, that's pretty condescending.

I'm sorry, but I'm not a machine. A conversation has a history, a context that colors how later parts of that conversation must be understood. If you want to start a new conversation, about a different subject other than the one previously being discussed, then you need to make that abundantly clear.

Also, that's a learning lesson for you, @Nicol: Hover over the specific comment to which you are responding, and see the downarrow? Click on the downarrow. You'll see the option, "reply to this message": click on it. That way conversations in chat proceed far more smoothly.

But since all of the messages are just shown in chronological order, all that does is give me annoying pings whenever you post.

@fbueckert does so, as do I. But @Nicol, you seem to simply react (knee-jerdedly) to any of a number of comments, some of which your subsequent comment does not apply.

Glad the OP of this post was an MSE mod. If I had posted the same exact post, I'd have reputation of 1 on this site by now. But please listen to and conder the mods insightful post: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/328160/…