I guess we just look at this differently. I believe the questioner is getting the answer as a reward and some rep and as such the answerer should be rewarded more.
@Tinkeringbell right, but because of your knowledge you knew where to look and what to look for, that's where I deem it worthy of more rep.
Besides... I can decide whether or not I still find it worth the effort for each question, regardless of how much fake internet points the asker gets for writing that question. If you feel the change is that unfair and makes questions unworthy of the 'effort' it takes to answer them... I guess we'll be seeing less answers, not better questions.
@Script47 Yes, I think that's the fundamental disconnect here. You reward the answerer for their knowledge, you're saying they deserve rep because they have knowledge. I look at it from the point of view of the site and content only. I don't reward you because you know stuff, I reward you because you added useful content to the site.
You can know everything in the world and yet post useless, crappy answers.
We don't reward knowledge here, we reward the ability to communicate. And that's equally important whether your are communicating a question or an answer to a question.
on one hand, questions have intrinsic value for the questioner, but answers don't for the answerer, or at least less. By that logic, questions shouldn't award rep at all and maybe cost after your first 3
So am I... but it's more to do with the retroactive aspect, and people getting privileges... not because answers are somehow so much more worthy of fake internet points...
@mag But it isn't. Getting people to ask their crappy questions is automatic. Getting them to ask good ones requires a reward. Since they'll likely get their answer anyway, we need an incentive to get them to write good questions.
@mag That's true... I think there was something on MSE this week about aging out questions for the Q-ban, if we can do that and do it for 'good' questions too, so your old good questions don't automatically protect anymore, that's a good way to arrange that perhaps?
the site tries to make people ask good questions foremost by negative reinforcement: as an incentive to not have it closed, deleted, downvoted, be question banned. All that.
@mag Yes, but that's why we should give them decent rep for good questions. Otherwise, they'll just dump their crap, get an answer and move on. So if we're rewarding good content, we should reward good content.
For rep to be a working incentive for better question someone would need to ask several and care about their rep. Most askers don't ask more then a couple questions, and most don't stick around.
@terdon wait, so rather than teach people to learn how to write proper questions, you want to bribe (right word?) them to do so by giving them more rep?
I think this change is going to be a non issue for most people so I'm not mad about it, but I do think the potential for positive change it presents is negligible
Of course, like I mentioned above, it'll happen, people will get over it and life will move on. But if we are discussing it then I'll put my view forward.
@terdon Thats true, but I don't think rep is a working incentive when askers have an overriding incentive (wanting an answer) primarily. The site just needs to get better at explaining the "make your question better and you get a better answer" correlation efficiently
@Script47 I think of it as rewarding, not bribing, but yes. I want people to come here and give useful content and rep is one of the mechanisms for it. But it boils down to this, for me: giving the same rep for questions and answers might just make people more likely to post good questions. And I don't see any downside to it, so why not?
@canon Well no. While we may have lost trust in SE because of things the company has done, this was a moderator betraying the trust placed in them by their community and by SE to keep private information private. So, if they're willing to break trust over this, they might be willing to break trust and use private information to attack a user.
There's no lol here, whoever leaked it most certainly betrayed the trust shown to them by SE, by the CMs, by the other moderators and by the community they moderate.
eh, warning the community of a change that's coming down the pipe that we would have otherwise not heard about prior to implementation, i appreciate that.
3
Sucks that it had to be done by sharing a private post, but... if that's all we've got
@KevinB No. Sorry, but no. What do you mean "warning"? It's not like someone's creeping up behind you to whack you over the head. There's no need to warn and the only thing that came out of this "warning" was prematurely starting the drama and not allowing SE to handle how and when to announce it.
In other words nothing useful at all and quite a bit of harm. The last thing we needed was more drama.
It feels like a constant stream of jabs at the status quo, pushing for "inclusiveness" ignoring all consequences and data in favor of only the stats that support your ideals.
More importantly, SE had actually shared this with the community, dammit! Not the whole community, but sharing it with the mods of all the sites is a good start. The ideal thing for me is i) share with mods, get initial feedback from a smaller group of dedicated users then ii) incorporate that initia feedback and then share with the broader community.
Now, why would SE ever share anything again if they can't even depend on mods keeping a secret?
@StopHarmingMonica And we did. Mods are part of the community.
@KevinB Pfft, what does that even mean? There are ~600 mods across the network, hardly a homogeneous group. But if you don't trust the mods and you dont' trust SE, then what's the point?
@KevinB This change, contrary to the leak has almost nothing to do with inclusiveness and everything to do with what SE thinks will make for better questions.
@terdon that the official announcement might not mention doesn't make it not about inclusiveness. Pretty much everything we've seen in the past year or two seems to be for this inclusivity. The leak did quote the original post. Though, how accurate it was is of course up for debate.
If you buy into the narrative that SE did this as some sort of inclusiveness push, your just eating the BS that the leaker is shoving. You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but it has no basis in fact.
Anyway, I'm not really interested in defending SE. I don't think most of their recent actions are defensible. I just hate that this was leaked because SE were finally moving in the right direction and sharing stuff, at least with the mods, to get some feedback before releasing.
And it seems a huge shame that some idiot took advantage of that.
Curious, would the leaker, if ever found out, get a fair trial like described in the new removal process or would it just be a firing because of the nature of offense?
I assume whoever they suspected of being the leaker would go through the process but leaking internal documents like that is one of the "actions incompatible with moderatorship at any point in the future"
so if they were confident they had the right person it would probably be a "leave and never return" type deal
So, quick context for those of us who missed it... what was the general nature of the leak? Someone mentioned it was something from the mod Teams page or something.
@Script47 They would be removed: this is a clear breach of the mod agreement, not the CoC. Mods have always been removed if they breached that. So sure, might go through the process, but it's a very clear cut case.
@StopHarmingMonica Whoever the leaker is set that process back though. SE-mod communication requires trust. Even if SE agreed to consult the community about all future decisions, the mods would likely still be involved as a first step since they are a smaller group to work with.
@Cerbrus Why was this question about "Why was this question about "Why was this question about retroactively changing the vote values deleted?" deleted?" deleted?
@StopHarmingMonica "good" is subjective; it did not ask for data it asked for opinions (yes, you then tried to say based rep counts but as an aside & that's not defining "good" just giving one criteria - not the best one either based on the patterns seen in SEDE)
@LinkBerest the researchers did not have the gender data from the developers survey. They didn't have any data on non-binary gender, and their validation technique was comparing a manual evaluation of username and location with an algorithm.
Yes, the survey data isn't perfect, but it provides, essentially, a different dimension to validate against. Including that dimension should substantially improve the reliability of gender inference. If the future change is intended to close a gender rep gap, the effect should be measured.
the survey data also (unless they linked gender to email/acct) wouldn't be able to give them the info they'd need to determine if the change would affect a particular group.
and... the agreement that existed for supplying your email address strictly forbid them from making said connection
@KevinB there are a variety of ways to use those data to improve the inference. I think by "not really a thing" you mean "not a thing I'm familiar with"
That includes respecting the privacy policy and confidentiality of survey responses
