For a while now, on a daily basis, the front page of Meta.SE has been populated with old questions bumped because of retaggings -- mostly removals. Today ignore seems to be the target.
As far as I know, burnination of tags should be well-motivated and accompanied by a Meta proposal to make sure ...
@JourneymanGeek I just don't want people to complain that "people are removing tags based on chat discussions" again.
I'm following the CM's advice in the top answer.
user302202
1:45 AM
Hi Karolyn! I'm not quite sure what your question is. Your title says "cooking frozen french fries" but your body seems to be asking how to clean the pan. Are you looking for help with how to cook them properly in the future or how to get the residue off? — Catija ♦2 hours ago
We normally see a few new questions per day, and then of those we normally only get what I would call "good" questions maybe 2-3 times per week.
The thing that had kept the site seeming more fresh than that was the Community Bot, which would bump older questions to the top. This would typically ...
@Bookends Yeah, I was talking with him earlier about that... I don't think we changed that but I can see whether there's just a shortage of questions that qualify.
Based on this SEDE, there are 86 (107 from query - 21 last activity before 1 month) questions on Robotics.SE that are eligible for bumping, but apparently there's other criteria that are unknown to us..?
Anime.SE seems also lowered, though Android.SE is as strong as usual with Community bumps...
Good eye! This changed on around January 8th
I've added a change here so that the community user can't rebump a question unless the original bump is more than 90 days in the past.
The problem here was caused back in 2011 when the bumps were weighted a little more towards questions that h...
the FAQ is also missing the bit about how certain sites only allow n bumped questions on the homepage at a time, and will refuse to bump more until some roll off
jmac pushed for that for Japanese.SO, since almost everyone using it was in the same timezone so they'd go to bed and... Wake up to a page full of bumps
I remember being annoyed that the same one post would show up every month, like clockwork. I think I eventually just voted on the answer to make it go away...
This question just got bumped. I've closed it now because it's an old question about a runaway issue in Google Chrome that must have been fixed some time in the last five years since the question was posted, but in the meantime, I notice that the community user has been bumping it almost exactly ...
So, answered a question on Stack Exchange that received 70 upvotes in just a few hours. Slept feeling 'king of the world'.
Woke up to see the question itself is deleted. All that reputation points lost
#FML
@SonictheIntrovertedHedgehog as far as my understanding, after the January 8th update, an already bumped question can only be bumped again after 90 days, not 30 days
> Now, questions have to wait a solid 4 months (120 days) after being bumped before they can be bumped again, unless some other form of activity (new answer, edit, etc.) occurs on them in the interim.
@Mrs.Robinson There's a thirty day minimum. If the post is untouched in those 30 days, an additional 90 days are required, unless there's activity during those 90 days.... so, if the question waited for 40 days and someone answered it, it would be eligible for bumping by community again at 70 days rather than 120.
user302202
If a question got bumped on day 1000, next time it is eligible to be bumped is: (a) 1091; (b) 1120?
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Pattern-matching website in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer, potentially problematic ns configuration in answer, blacklisted user (151): Tips for golfing in Octave by varun gupta on codegolf.SE
@Magisch Lots. Mainly me complaining about how we do releases and about how co-worker seriously hinders my productivity by not looking up a thing himself.
@Catija I see that there was some update on meta about duplicate comments with MathJax. Thanks for checking on that - if it was you who moved the things to SE devs.
I find it a bit frustrating how everyone reads "4% of turnover or 20m$" and immediately assumes that will be what's on the line. No agency to date has actually sanctioned such a maximum fine, and there have been significantly more serious violations sanctioned
I hear it myself all the time in my capacity as DPO of my company. Usually it's external "consultants" or vested interests that beat the drum of "your going to get fined out of business" when every single regulatory agency in my country has in fact said that no there will be no such thing. That combined with how GDPR currently plays out (for instance in my state, fines have so far only been issued after continued ignoring of agency guidance, you usually get a warning + follow up audit first)
and the agency has stated that its goal is not to fine people but to increase adoption of privacy protections across the industry without being unreasonable about it. The entire fearmongering industry is just preying on the fact that GDPR is somewhat vaguely written
this has been a speciality mint tea fueled rant by a confused and slightly miffed cactus
@Magisch I find also a bit frustrating that some are claiming others are overreacting. I mean... one is free to think this is yet "just an error", but others are also free to be angry.
@Derpy No I totally get why people are angry and upset. I even wrote an answer outlining how people might be in the second meta. But I don't like how people are drumming the "this could be the end of the company in fines" thing. discussing potential litigation and regulatory action wrt. this is not really a useful discussion imo
now discussing why it's annoying and angering on the other hand I can get
@Magisch look, I will be direct, without any attempt at sugarcoating the thing.
some time ago JNat made an error with the BCc thing
but it was "just" that: an error.
a pretty bad error
an error that got me pretty annoyed when someone decided to make a joke out of it - and somehow put an image beacon lookalike in a spam mail directed to an hundred of other users (btw, wonder if the security investigations about that thing ever produced anything noteworthy)...
but still an error, and I am willing to forgive an error
I doubt they were aware of the implications of sending emails to amazon
they said explicitly "Only for the purposes of sending gift cards" well there was probably some fineprint in the amazon disclaimer to upload these that wasn't read
even then what worries me is not that they "weren't aware". Is that no-one had enough TLC to ask himself what said implication were (or, in your example - to actually read the fineprint)
Moderators and employees are forbidden to share any of your information. They refrain from doing so not so much it's because that's the rule, but because they're great people that hate recruiter spam too :)
We log all access to personally-identifying information. No one, employee or moderator, h...
@Derpy it's entirely possible that no one's ever complained or that's simply how they have done it or no one thought of adding a bunch of cya legalese or...
And it's probably not really marketing. It's probably folks closer to the data side of things
I'm personally not really a fan of piling on with 'you're all awful'
Which a lot if comments feel like. As an unaffected party maybe in future I'd ask about information sharing in such situations once things have shaken down.
@Magisch read "expect" as "I would hope that at least [they spend a minute ...]", not as "I think they will"
basically, I meant that to me putting some Time, Love and Care into the task - meaning to do some bare research into what you are doing - in that case would be something that I would hope would be the bare minimum.
Totally agree that sadly is not often the case as this incident demonstrates
and no, again sadly , I am not even surprised since that seems to be how the world goes nowadays
Assume? It is a pretty objective conclusion imho. Mind you, I am not talking about single persons, the only "person" in my reasoning is the company as a whole.
Had a problem, required a "lot" of work. Saw a simpler solution. Again, pretty sure the company didn't meant anyone harm when choosing said shortcut.
That said, I am indeed saddened to see that time was not put into considering the consequences of that shortcut.
> We're looking at what systems we can use for similar situations in the future, so as to avoid emails like these having to be sent manually from our personal inboxes, which is much more prone to errors like these happening.
@Derpy At the certificate training program that I did for GDPR we had one of the participant's company make such a mistake. We used it to discuss how to file regulatory agency disclosure things and what to expect in the following audit :p
And it keeps "getting dragged up" because it showed that one needs to think about what he is doing when handling personal info. Yet, the same mistake was made little later.
and this time, it wasn't a mistake. This time it was a choice. An ill one, but a choice. A misguided one, but still a choice. Made by someone who didn't realize the consequences, still a choice. In a hurry? Still a choice.
Again, said multiple time that I am sure of that. I will gladly leave nonsense like "they sold the data to amazon, got a big bag of $ and now trying to cover up" out of this, thanks.
But, in the same way, fell free to assume I meant that.
As for me, I will have just to conclude that whatever training, correction, information campaign the previous incident put into motion... didn't have the expected results.
In pokemon, attacks have "power points", abbreviated by the game as PP. You can use an attack that many times before your pokemon has to rest at a poke center or sleep