« first day (3860 days earlier)      last day (46 days later) » 

2:26 AM
Happy spam meal
 
Rob
2:42 AM
@Catija I still don't have a whole hour all at once to write that bug, but I've found what might be a better example. The problem I had with writing up the first bug is: What if the two "Close (2)" was replaced by "Close (1)" because someone saw the Cx2 and thought they'd be third; but became first of a second attempt. --- So I tried to look for a better example.
One exists in Space. space.stackexchange.com/posts/50321/timeline, Close Queue. The first "Leave Open" appears to have its review completed, yet it's "Close (4)" (as far as I can see/tell). The next "Leave Open" has a count not cleared too, but the third is cleared, possibly because the Timeline says it was merged; which cleaned things up.
 
@Rob I thought it also counts the flags? Because I've seen "Close (4)" with only 1 real close vote on an explicit off-topic question.
(that said, I don't know the context of this bug, whoops!)
 
Rob
It does, but the Bug is not the counting (per se) but the clearing of the count after the Review is completed. --- Yes, shoulder surfer (😀); gotta read the backscroll - but thanks for your interest.
yesterday, by Catija
@Rob Yeah, that's... broken.
We appreciate your input, as a mod, since even those who can see (and others with considerable experience) find it difficult to nail down exactly what breaks, and why sometimes it doesn't.
GTG
 
2:58 AM
BYBY
 
 
3 hours later…
5:39 AM
@JourneymanGeek @Tinkeringbell Can one of you please re-delete this post as spam? It's a blatant spam post that the author deleted, which means they have the ability to undelete.
Due to a bug which I'm about to file, I'm unable to flag the post to request this.
@Glorfindel The recent changes to revision histories have broken your NSFW user script; can you please fix?
 
@JNat meta.stackexchange.com/users/949509/anitaitsupport one more for the spammer bonfire
@SonictheCuriouserHedgehog taken care of
I was actually looking at that.
 
6:01 AM
0
Q: Unable to custom flag an author-deleted post that I previously flagged as spam/abusive, as I can't retract my pending red flag

Sonic the Curiouser HedgehogI just flagged a spam post here as spam. The author later self-deleted the post. Due to my as-of-yet pending spam flag (which remains on the post after the author deletion), I'm unable to cast a moderator flag on the post, as I can't have two pending flags on the same post at the same time. This ...

 
@Rob so, after poking around a bit more, I found a MSE post from Shog that says votes don't clear, only reviews but that the leave open result causes the vote/s to start aging away immediately.... so it's by design?
 
I think the issue may be that they loaded the page when there were [x] votes, but it later aged to [x-1] votes, and they never noticed. When they then submitted a vote, it still continued to show as [x] votes because of the prior aging that they didn't reload to see.
 
6:31 AM
.....
@bad_coder I HAD NO IDEA SOMEONE ACTUALLY BLOCKED ORCHARD ROAD
I picked that as a random street that had nothing to do with either the US or China :D :D :D
I mean, its hilarious but now I need to think of somewhere else famous
 
6:49 AM
@JourneymanGeek LOL glad you liked it :D it was especially funny because it happened in Singapore. (You probably remembered it subcounsciously).
 
(I swapped it for somewhere nothing interesting ever happens)
(please don't check) :D
 
@JourneymanGeek argh a reference to a late 19th century anti-clerical French politician with connections to the Dreyfus case (rest assured no one will look into that...)
 
@bad_coder Oh I knew that
the street is boring but major
it also has a lovely bridge
scratch that
the bridge is boring too
 
@JourneymanGeek who were the first Europeans to reach Singapore?
 
I think the brits might have stolen it from the dutch
 
6:56 AM
@JourneymanGeek check your history...
 
I mean the protugese were here before
but the dutch kicked them out...
@bad_coder really lost vikings?
 
@JourneymanGeek I have to get off SE, see ya'll tomorrow. Bye.
 
 
3 hours later…
10:14 AM
19 messages moved to Chimney
 
@SonictheCuriouserHedgehog thanks for the report, fixed now (v0.5)
 
 
2 hours later…
Rob
12:13 PM
@Catija That seems odd (unwanted), that they aren't cleared; some of the close requests are the result of a flag and some VTC (which puts it in the Review Queue, where it waits to get more flags there, or pick up additional flags and votes outside the queue). --- After the decision is made it's flushed (cleared) from qualified reviewers but publically shamed (aged away) at the question, possibly picking up additional close requests as a result of the advertising (attention drawing (#)).
It may be "status-bydesign" but is it a logical and even-handed design, a desirable outcome?
 
Rob
1:09 PM
It would be odd (different from what we have now) if Flags had a number next to them, and when a moderator handles the flag it either goes through or is cleared; leaving the remaining flags (and an attention grabbing number) to age away.
It's Streisanding an outcome, to favor the negative outcome for the post - it's not like you can click on Flag or Close and vote not to close (or flag). --- That's OK if the outcome ends up being correct, but it's not good if the initiator was wrong.
 
1:58 PM
@Rob Yeah, I'm not convinced it's the best solution but I think the argument at this point would be a discussion/feature request rather than a bug report.
 
Rob
2:14 PM
Yes, not a "bug" - a discussion about whether it's working the way most of us would want, or at least consistently with the way it works by other routes; and if we should implement it differently. --- Exactly the kind of Feature Request that is unpopular, though that doesn't make this a bad idea. --- Ultimately, would someone read the poorly documented spaghetti (saw that in an answer / comment somewhere) and rewrite the code; perhaps not.
 
 
2 hours later…
4:10 PM
This gets complicated in practice because of how voting works and how questions can (d)evolve over time.
Remember, the close queue exists to get eyeballs on votes that were probably going to age away unseen otherwise; think, small tag or site.
My personal opinion is that voting to close is more trouble than it is worth: if closing was as easy as editing and as easy to correct as a bad edit, this would all be unnecessary.
But... Things being what they are, it is a balance between giving 3-5 people some autonomy in high-traffic areas, and giving 1-2 people assistance in low-traffic ones.
 
4:41 PM
The specific point of confusion here is that when a question is marked "leave open" why are only the close reviews cleared and not the close votes - it leaves it looking somewhat odd. It's clearly been this way for a long time and yet... I feel like I don't see many questions with "Close (n)" as one might expect. Either that indicates
1. people are better about identifying stuff that should be closed than overusing their close votes to try and close a ton of stuff...
2. or that people in review tend to follow the herd rather than disagree with the close vote.
 
 
1 hour later…
6:05 PM
@Catija because review wasn't intended to change close mechanics, and there is no "clear" for votes (that's not 100% true now, but it was in 2012 when this was designed)
 
6:32 PM
IIRC it was Geoff who made the argument that we call them votes and thus the mechanics should reflect that: nobody should be able to just make them go "poof" for arbitrary, capricious or unknown reasons.
If folks are voting then the rules by which votes are counted and a decision is made should be known up-front, predictable, and auditable.
...not sure that's entirely true, but...
 
@Shog9 ... but I don't understand why close reviews, which aren't generally seen as different than close votes are treated differently. It feels like parity there makes more sense than not.
 
Lemme find something...
 
Rob
6:56 PM
Thanks for your advice Shog.
6 hours ago, by Rob
It's Streisanding an outcome, to favor the negative outcome for the post - it's not like you can click on Flag or Close and vote not to close (or flag). --- That's OK if the outcome ends up being correct, but it's not good if the initiator was wrong.
 
Rob
7:10 PM
Here's why this is a problem. This review was recently completed, and it was decided to leave open. When you look at the following screenshot what action comes to mind: 1. Leave it, the review was completed. 2. Nothing for me to do. 3. I'd better get my vote in quick and be 5th, or someone else will take my spot.
 
7:39 PM
Over just the past year, that question has been in reopen review 7 times. During those reviews, some of the same reviewers have reviewed the same way multiple times.
Reviews do not act like votes. They are not nearly as restricted as votes, and probably can't be.
The review system is, strictly-speaking, optional for close and reopen: questions can be closed, not-closed, reopened and not-reopened, without anyone involved touching review.
It is... Like training wheels, or some other sort of assistive device: it tries to provide a structure and coordination for what was already possible without it, in a way that scales a bit better than, say, a group of folks in a chat room.
Crucially: it does not act as an arbiter for close or reopen votes. It cannot, not without a massive change to how it works today. If you look at my example and imagine that a negating review was given the opportunity to nullify votes... Then some guy named "Rob" would have nullified more votes than he could have actually cast on the question under review. It is a heavily biased system, saved only by the fact that its power is derived almost entirely from presumed apathy...
What I'm looking at 😁
So, I'm distracted, but... Lemme know if this makes sense @cat @rob ?
The systems are fundamentally different stack levels; they cannot have parity.
 
Rob
7:57 PM
@Shog9 Since I'm a reviewer there I'm familiar with that one, and it's (probably) the same person who insists that it be reopened; while the closers need reasons the reopener simply requeues their request - it's like a duplicate question, except we can't close it ask a duplicate request. --- What if a moderator or CM made a decision and every few weeks we were allowed to ask if they'd reconsider. --- Like the image of the road: "Are we there yet?", "Are we there yet?", "Are we there yet?".
I'd prefer a different example.
 
That's why I used that example 😋
FWIW, I was the last voter...
In 9 days, I can vote again if I wish - a capability that I'm allowed only because my vote aged instead of being deleted.
IOW, we both have the capability to keep pushing our desired outcome on that post, but we cannot push against each other directly within the system.
 
Rob
You can see the reopener's position, in the comment, "one rule for every site, no Community nor moderator discretion":
This discussion has value in any SE site, I don't get why it should remain closed. — Braiam Jul 17 '20 at 20:55
Followed by my reply, the policy is site-by-site specific.
It's a meta for each individual per-child-meta, not for MSE to dictate for the masses.
Plus, it's (currently) not about reopening, it's about: If the Privileged Reviewers agree with the first Flag or VTC then the "Close (#)" link is reset, if the community moderators disagree with the first person then usually (but not always) the "Close (#)" lingers; inviting more closes (after the Review has been completed).
I believe that after a Reopen Review that the count is reset, regardless of whether it's to reopen or leave closed - so, it's really not about reopen - which is good, because if someone edits the question it hits the reopen queue.
 
Rob
8:18 PM
Source: Google image search "Scotland walking trail":
😀
 
8:32 PM
@Shog9 driving to the new place?
@Rob I'm not actually sure that it is... it's kicked out of review but the reopen votes stick around, pretty sure?
@Shog9 so... if you review something to say it should be closed and the question gets closed and then reopened... can you still vote to close it? Can you review it again? At what point does the "one (effective) vote to close per question" come into things?
At some point the review becomes a vote, no?
Should shrewd reviewers visit the question to vote to close if they don't want their review "votes" to get invalidated?
 
Rob
9:25 PM
@Catija They could, at the cost of credit for a badge; and the benefit of their vote lingering after someone else reviews it - along with anonymity if it isn't closed, and partial anonymity if it is.
 
Rob
9:36 PM
@Catija Skimming through the first page of the Reopen Queue (with one exception, and that's probably the editor (Ryan) who cast the reopen; so it was cleared) almost every decision was "Leave Closed", and the "Reopen" link is cleared - though many are deleted.
 
Hmmm.
18
Q: It is time that we have a Super Downvote!

Shog9In keeping with today's theme I'd like to revive a very old request: we should have a limited number of Super Downvotes to use each day as we see fit. My reasoning is simple: folks enjoy downvoting, and In These Dark Times we need to maximize whatever enjoyment we can scrounge up! For years, fol...

 
@Catija here's where this gets fun: I can review a question to say "do not close" and then vote to close it
@Catija yep, nother truckload
 
Rob
9:52 PM
@DavidPostill If we are doing that: the Itchy and Scratchy image beats the Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam image.
I think Shog posted that tongue in cheek, because it references a highly downvoted question, with a highly upvoted answer opposing the idea; that theme is followed in the answers to Shog's question, by answerers who didn't get the joke.
 
10:13 PM
> Answers with zero or negative score that receive six recommend deletion reviews (four on Stack Overflow)
Since when is that four on SO? (from the FAQ: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/…)
 
@Rob Yeah, I had figured that out :-J - why isn't there a proper emoji for tongue in cheek?
 
Rob
10:53 PM
😋 ? - sort of ... "face savoring food".
 
@Rob Yeah but the tongue is outside
 
Rob
11:05 PM
There's this: ( ´ω`o) or emojipedia.org/winking-face-with-tongue 😜 (which means, amongst other things, joking).
Wikipedia says: 😏 or 😒 is official.
 
@Rob TIL
 

« first day (3860 days earlier)      last day (46 days later) »