a while ago, there was an intent to roll out 3CV threshold at SO after post notices are done, is it still planned to do this?

Shouldn't this be at MSO, seeing this is SO only?

@Luuklag I was thinking the same but it's going to be rolled out to the network as a whole so best everyone can see it.

@TheLethalCoder, mhhh true... Anyways, it could do with a [featured] tag then.

@Luuklag it is on SO for the time being, but it is a feature that is destined for the whole network. So we decided to post the announcement here. I just posted a small post to MSO, giving a link to this discussion.

@Luuklag bad idea to make this featured, as 50% of the people reading this won't see any change.

@YaakovEllis links are useful since the images in the post are small and hard to read. So clicking it to see the full image is useful.

I totally support all closed questions being attributed to Martijn ...

It feels like the new notices should be ‘contagious’ - meaning that if the OP of a question sees them then anyone who sees that question ‘catches’ new notice-itis as well. It would make it easier to help anyone who’s seeing the new notice as there would be consistency of experience between the OP and any commenters and answerers!

@Shadow point taken, image links added back

Want it on ruSO T_T

also announced at MSO

@YaakovEllis Where can I see all the new text?

@Shadow Actually, I think it's important to make this "featured" for exactly that reason: So people understand why things have changed, or why some people in chat (for example) might say that. I'm thinking of the recent experiement with hiding DV and all the questions that generated on SO Meta - much to Shog's surprise <g>

It's great to see a question with a lot of participation which is not about the Code of Conduct.

@NickA yes, it will go to meta sites at the same time as it goes to the rest of the network

I don't like changing "too broad" to "needs more focus" for two reasons: 1) it is longer/more words, so that's just a regression for those of us who type it a lot (even just the acronym... TB -> NMF), and 2) the new wording much more strongly suggests that the question is ultimately a good idea for posting on SO and just needs a bit more work, whereas in truth many questions are just inherently Too Broad, and no amount of editing is going to bring them within scope. In general, the vibe I get from most of the reworded close descriptions has this problem.

Also, the reasoning for not providing an exhaustive list of changes doesn't make sense to me. Re: "There are sooo many changes that were made, that any attempt to document all of these in a clear way will probably still end up being confusing" It's... just a list of changes, isn't it? Surely you can trust a bunch of programmers (as the change is only live on SO currently) to not get confused about a change log/release notes? I get that it might get stale/incomplete pretty quickly, but that's not a big deal... if it's a Q&A somewhere community members can even help keep it up-to-date.

@TylerH point taken. we will be talking internally about releasing a list of changes. Won't happen today though (and was not something that was going to hold up this launch)

It looks like a duplicate page would be automatically redirected (for those without the privileges to see it) to the linked duplicate. This, however, doesn't happen, when the post marked as a duplicate contains also answer(s). Also an answered dup implements the old duplicate banner. Is this intentional?

@Teemu-callmewhateveryouwant the duplicate page redirect is by design and unchanged from before. Can you please post an answer with an example for the answered duplicate with the old banner? If it is indeed showing in new notices mode, that is not intentional

Why is it asking me to provide a new answer to an 11-year-old question with 36 answers (and 2100 upvotes) (with 6 deleted answers)? - "Highly active question. Since you have 14,552 reputation, you can answer this question. The reputation requirement helps protect this question from spam activity. Learn more."

@Daniil Maybe, but probably not yet. It's only affecting SO right now; it will probably be featured once it's rolled out to all sites.

I see you are not in an agreement about the last joke (?) - remove, rollback, remove, rollback. I myslelf wonder what it means and removing it would make the question less confusing.

@PeterMortensen I just posted an answer on that meta.stackexchange.com/a/337053/253521

I don't think European Swallows use Imperial units..

@ChristineH.Richards That's a reference to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. For those who are missing the reference, you can see the two relevant scenes here: youtube.com/watch?v=liIlW-ovx0Y and here: youtube.com/watch?v=dPOyOM7wxlE

TylerH & Yaakov, I agree with Tyler that: " It's... just a list of changes, isn't it?" --- A simple script could run, grab the code and create A/B versions, spit out a title (subroutine name?) followed by the A/B, then a horizontal line, then on to the next difference. Convert to HTML and make that a new question (or FAQ: What are the A/B's, exactly?).

@Shadow except the 50% that do see it could be confused without it.

Thank you. Closing has been annoying and full of friction for far too long, I really appreciate these changes (and hope that further ones will follow)

Still planned, @gnat. Not sure how long this'll take yet - depends on how many bugs y'all find...

Wait only people with the privilege can see it’s closed?

@Stormblessed No, everybody sees that it's closed, but you don't see who voted to close unless you can close-vote.

What’s the reason to hide that?

How fluid are the A/B groups? I was on the B group, yesterday I found myself on the A group for a while, and this morning (on my timezone) I'm again back on the B group...

@Stormblessed cause (1) visitors don't need that information, it's just clutter. (2) Closing questions is quite unpopular, especially on questions that attract a lot of low-rep answerers. There is no need for them to know whom to blame. These decisions should only be discussed between the ones with the close privilege and the OP

@YaakovEllis Before I create a bug post I ask here: is it on purpose that the notification boxes aren't show after a question got deleted due to spam/abusive flags? The old style still showed the "closed by" and "deleted by" boxes, but the new style doesn't show anything. (for example here: stackoverflow.com/questions/58645825)

@Tom It's a bug. The locked and deleted post notices are shown for answers, but not for questions. A stated goal of this change is consistency, so the displays should both be one way or the other. The information provided is also important. It's common for a post to be hidden as spam or R/A, but to deleted by a moderator, not as spam/R/A, and not be locked. Hidden just means there were active spam or R/A flags when deleted, not that it was deleted as spam/R/A.

So double standards again? The joke is totally out of place and not even funny... Meta is not for jokes.

That assumes we even have standards. Let alone two sets of standards. I cannot speak for people who do not appreciate Monty Python, or worse the Princess Bride. I will say though that a happy and engaged dev team is a great way to annoy people who don't like us - the pesky meta mob and that seems a worthy thing.

I have chosen to not get involved with the edit wars surrounding the end of the FAQ. It is of course up to the members of the community as to what content is appropriate or not. I respect all opinions and know that y'all have the best of intentions. My personal feelings aside, thanks to all who have contributed here so far.

A thorough explanation of the swallow bridge riddle - it's no more funny than a henweigh, but it lightens the mood.

To close-voters: While this is currently implemented on SO only, this question clearly states that it's the intent to have this network-wide: "After evaluating the impact of the notices during this period and making any warranted changes, our goal is to release these network-wide, and to completely remove the old notices from the system." Thus, this is not an issue which only affects one specific site, the close reason selected by four people. It's clear that this question solicits feedback on the feature being used on all sites, even though the current examples are SO focused.