Without dismissing: List the advantages, #1 Destroy the integrity of the voting and reputation system. #2 Violate the spirit of cc by-sa 3.0 with pay to play symbiosis. #3 Cause one arm to grow longer than the other. ...
Creating a successful new web site is hard. Even with a dedicated network of users to draw from, it takes a considerable level of commitment and buy-in from an active community to get the site off the ground. Unfortunately, Augur—Stack Exchange isn't going to make it.
In just about 2 years of e...
@Rob so, I'm asking if we should CW it to protect answers. Since I'm actually getting lots of downvotes - I can make an example of something unpopular, asked by a popular user, worth asking.
and yanno what?
I can take the downvotes without too much emotional distress or hurt to my reputation levels ;p
@Rob Noticed that you voted to reject this edit. While I don't necessarily agree with the premise behind the edit, I feel that the edit itself is valid, and voted to approve. Also, if you'd followed the link the editor was citing, it clearly mentions that a bounty is not a good way to get an official response to a request.
It provides more clarity to the title.
There's a reason why the system lets title-only edits past the 6-character body edit restriction.
As I stated in my objection, I couldn't fairly choose the other reasons. It's a cheap bump. I didn't want to list all their alternative courses of action, so as to not encourage them further.
JM, it could be for answers but I think the answer is self evident - and if a truly great answer should be forthcoming it ought to be upvoted, not attacked because of the question.
@JourneymanGeek So would you suggest a "symbolic reject"? Rejecting their edit but then applying it; this will indicate that the edit is good but discourage that type of edit ("cheap bump").
The person could have answered, made a much better edit or forked over a bounty; but instead it was a minimal effort to skirt anyone objecting (and rejecting) for any of the other reasons - so I used other and made a valid objection (based on the Editor's stated purpose).
@JourneymanGeek Sometimes I genuinely want feedback as to why others reviewed a certain thing a different way than me, because maybe I missed something or am unfamiliar with some implicit guideline.
The CMs say that it's OK for mods to give review bans for single bad reviews. I want to improve my review skills to avoid such bans. And that includes learning from others, why they reviewed some things a certain way.
That said, I reread that section of my answer multiple times, and quite frankly, I cannot understand how it promotes making minor edits to posts just to get official attention for them.
Maybe it's the "grammar edits" part (but this wasn't one). Maybe it's the last sentence of that paragraph.
The few times I fast tracked something, it was a breaking bug, and I managed to go completely around the usual way to do things cause it was actually time sensitive.
Also, as far as the title edit, that post had already been bumped by an answer an hour earlier, so there wasn't much of a concern bumping it with an edit. So I went ahead and applied it.
@SonictheBracketedHedgehog That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@SonictheBracketedHedgehog gone. Though considering it was still up, I don't think the ping was particularly necessary. I'd have caught it, as I did, after lunch.
@JourneymanGeek They were posting spam in quick succession
The second one was within minutes of the first, so I assumed they were going to keep spamming like that, so I thought it would be best to stop it as quickly as possible.
@JourneymanGeek I'm pretty sure, that's the person is not evil. Probably, made mistakes, that he couldn't see/handle by himself. And he need help from other teammates.
There's been a few suggestions from fellow users that we should consider having a paid tier on SE.
Now, SE's fundamentally against being behind a paywall of any sort. I also remember someone suggesting it be a way to get around early user restrictions or even buying reputation. I personally don'...
@Marshmallow Meh. Perhaps... Though in this case people seem to be missing the word 'experiment' a bit? A lot of the answers are acting like the post is saying 'this is what you'll be getting in the way of advertisements and we're not going to change that'.
@JourneymanGeek thing is, they don't review the ads before showing them anymore, like it used to be. Sorry but having a bad ad removed only after reported (and 6-8 days until the report is handled) is pointless and meaningless.
@ShadowTheCurlyBracedWizard on the other hand, if there's enough of a fuss, they might review the fact that they're not reviewed, or even drop the ad provider.
Now that I did a super quick skimming of the latest blog article, that looks like an answer to the meta.stackoverflow.com/q/385542/2821954 -> do an interview with an expert and post it on the company blog.
Like someone from SE mentioned, their community actually trusting them is a very rare thing, and most of the time, they have to let the product speak for itself.
Just caught up on some Meta stuff I somehow missed over the past weeks. It seems like investors are taking more and more control of the company's direction? Slowly the company turns into what it once set out to displace, but I have a feeling it is a lot harder now, if not impossible, for a new initiative to disrupt the Q&A space and dethrone SO. (Sorry for the doomsday thinking...)
Is this general place of stackexchange? Have I found the promised land?
My question is... How can I search for threads that have been any of these: 1) [closed], 2) [off-topic], 3) [deleted]? I noticed an odd trend about python and r across the stack exchange and I want to make sure that my theory is not wrong. Because I feel like my conclusions should be data driven not gut feeling driven.
^so I did search for this question, but did not find anything. I wanted to ask it here as I pretty sure it would be duplicate. lol (slowly being trained by stackoverflow ^^; )
Creating a successful new web site is hard. Even with a dedicated network of users to draw from, it takes a considerable level of commitment and buy-in from an active community to get the site off the ground. Unfortunately, Augur—Stack Exchange isn't going to make it.
In just about 2 years of e...
