I'm running a rather confusing issue.
I'm trying to pull together data from a couple different tables in an Access 2013 database. No big deal, write a union query, pull the same number of columns, good to go, right? It works fine.
The issue crops up when I create another query to use the resu...
I think the only downside I can see to these badges is even more fastest guns in the west, answering even the bad questions because if they get edited it might earn them a badge... But hopefully that's too much effort for people to game.
On my PC Stack Exchange websites are very slow. Its response time is almost 5 minutes, and it's too much. Sometimes it loads in 1.5 minutes.
And other websites are loading properly.
I have attached screenshots of Google's response time and Stack Exchange response time.
Stack Overflow's respons...
@Aibobot Meh. I still feel it's a bit weird to reward badges for answering bad questions (even when an edit can make them good, edit/close, not answer...). But I've never really gotten fond of the idea that an answer can make a question look great.
@Aibobot Ehh, preferably not... Writing an answer is anything but more likely to engage an asker, as they now put no more effort in their question (at least, from what I've seen).
So you keep having questions around that are either mediocre, or less than that... :/
Heh, just earned a Lifeboat badge for my answer regarding why people post blatantly off-topic questions. Now I have an example of why this behavior should be encouraged.
@Rob Same here, the one on IPS meta just came in. So a jacked on main and a boat on meta... And here I always thought the most dramatic content was on main...
IMHO these badges are way better than their predecessors. It would be an entirely different argument to see if they're any good, but Tumbleweed was useless and Reversal was such an after-the-fact badge it didn't encourage anything either way.
i agree about tumbleweed. but i disagree about reversal. Does it need to exist? eh, probably not. are the new badges better? eh, it requires the question to end up with a positive score, i guess that can be considered good? sometimes?
it's probably good for keeping the users who asked the questions that are affected by this around
I always viewed badges as training wheels. They're there to sort of drive how newer users use the site. Once you're more accustomed to the site the badges (other than tag badges) are less meaningful
A mind numbing question can tumbleweed, and an insightful question can reverse once the people whom understand the complexity get off work and upvote a good question.
or when "helpers" find it and say Oh hey i can answer this question that was asked a thousand times before! it's a good question! we can always use another!
I think the most common cases for the new gold is not that people realize the question is awesome all of a sudden, but that the whole thread looks so helpful they upvote the question too.
The question would still be the same one some downvoted.
The line of thinking would go like "now that this has this awesome answer, the answer wouldn't have been there if it wasn't for the question, so it feels wrong if it's standing at -3". For example.
@KevinB I don't think it's a problem though. It does make some annoying "why dis get votes me jealous waa waa" meta pop up, but it doesn't encourage bad questions like the normal crap answered does. A popular answer does those, but the crappy questions with popular answers rarely get to the minuses to get the answerer a badge like that. I think that's an important distinction
So all in all, I don't think this badge encourages any bad behavior any more than, say, Marshal does.
The popular answer just keeps the post from being deleted. Votes on the question at that point don't matter because the answer will prevent it from being deleted.
what i AM saying is this keeps garbage around. It encourages answering bad questions with the purpose of keeping people who are asking bad questions around.
which, isn't necessarily bad, but it doesn't help them learn to do better either.
i mean... it's obvious, to me at least, this is just another initiative aimed at reducing the perceived barriers of entry by encouraging people to answer more and curate less strictly. but, meh, it's just a badge at the end of the day. this isn't any kind of policy shift
@Marshmallow Well, considering it is supposed to replace Tumbleweed....there needs to be some sort of benefit. Even if that benefit is no longer, "You suck, have a badge."
@JohnDvorak I don't think debating it holds much value at this point. We need to see which reaction will be more common "Oh man, getting a +5 answer to this crap is impossible, I wouldn't answer it" vs. "oooh, what if I gets badge if I answer this"
I don't have tumbleweed. All of my SO questions are actually well-received mathematical proofs resolving very difficult but extremely important mathematical conjectures.
mine were mostly meh, but because i routinely left comments requesting clarification or changes to posts that i downvoted, i received a lot of revenge votes
@Tinkeringbell In case you happened to miss the joke in this comment: it's a quote from the Sonic video games. The link there is to a video of him saying it.
You get it by asking a question that gets no answers, no votes, no comments, and low views for a week.
In other words, you get it as a consolation prize for asking a bad question.
"In other words, you get [the Tumbleweed badge] as a consolation prize for asking a bad question."
I've been encountering strange bugs in the CV queue where I review something as "Close", my close vote goes through, but the review task is not dismissed. I have to click "Leave Open" for it to count as my having reviewed it.
Opining on the congratulatory post is one I've not seen. The were 9 people to vote for and ~50% of the people whom looked at the election page voted; there also seemed to be few opposing comments; when rallying could have made a difference. Now it's over, they complain.
Is this chatroom geared to site mods, primarily? Because mostly what I see here are site mods high-fiving other site mods, and for the most part, ignoring non-site mods who care just as much as any of you do about SE. I ask this because the current discussion about someone elected to become one of you! And dismissing out of hand, any/all feedback from other users. Know that I have known for a long time that this goes on, and also among Community managers. Better to not be so public about ...
Also, I do think you need to be more specific about your critique of my messages, or we can't really discuss anything meaningfully @Namaste. I'm open to improving my attitude, if I need to. For reals.
@SonictheBracketedHedgehog Why was it deleted?
. . . and was it deleted by staff?
@Namaste All I'm saying is if it's anything other than a [popular] jab at a candidate, why did it not reflect itself in the votes? And I'm sharing my personal experience that he's usually blunt, but rarely unfriendly.
@Marshmallow I'm sorry to have overgeneralized about the most frequent users here being upvoted. But I can come up with a list of 20 meta users whose posts, however narrow, however poor in quality, get a landslide of upvotes, while most others are quickly picked apart. Folks aren't to upvote only those they like... that's grounds for suspension. Yet regularly, some users are simply ignored, considered not part of the "club"... on meta.se and in many of its chats.
@SonictheBracketedHedgehog I think the general attitude was to keep stuff like that around because, you know, it's history. Like meta's memes, or Flack Overstow, or lots of other posts about April Fools and what-not. It could use the lock maybe, to prevent misguided useless new activity on it, like a bug report or something. Unless it was deleted by staff, or something else which would make deletion a final decision, but I can't see that until I answer enough meta rants
@Marshmallow I do not know the user. I was pointing to the conversation here, and the default attitude of dismissal of users unknown to regular users on meta who by definition are not site mods, nor suck-ups on meta.se.
@Namaste Well, about chat, there's only here and Shadow's Den, which gets regular chatting activity. About the site, are we talking about answers with a more neutral tone, like a bug report or something, or the more philosophical and more emotional ones?
Of course, seeing an answer by, say, @Journey, means I'm most probably going to agree with him, so even before reading it, I personally reflexively hover over the upvote button
But I never (Rarely?) vote without reading and understanding the answer to the best extent. My personal impression is this is a much easier place than meta.SO
@Marshmallow Exactly. That's what I'm suggesting happens. Not for nefarious reasons, just as most users don't display bias in their voting for nefarious reasons; but "regulars" on MSE are just as subject to biased voting as are "regular users" (just not regular on MSE), but they're never confronted about it.
Out of on-topic downvoted meta posts here, I don't get the downvotes on maybe one or two out of ten
@Namaste I think that'd be more because it's hard to do the confronting constructively. Since it's the established system being criticized, it's far too easy to just be critical.
The posts of that type usually boil down to a "u suck", and if they do present any alternatives, it's usually contrary to the core of the model. Like "allow too broad" or somesuch. It also doesn't help that it's usually not a frequent user of meta who has something to say, but someone who's frustrated about closure
There is the rare post from a very established user calling for sanity though
@Namaste You could be the one writing such a post. It doesn't even have to offer a possible alternative, it just shouldn't antagonize the audience it's referring to. I think I recall an instance or two when you disputed this regular meta behavior and you had a point, but I can't remember it clearly
Meta's regular readers probably paid attention to the first couple of hundred criticisms, but when the ideas presented in those were debunked, it'd be kinda natural to dismiss further criticism as baseless
Also, what you say further reinforces my impression that meta.SE's more like this quiet hut in the suburbs than the busy bazaar in city center
@Marshmallow No. I don't think it's broken beyond repair. What I'm saying is that if I had posteted Does meta have to mean murder, word for word, sentence for sentence, I do believe it would have been downvoted into oblivion. Instead, a user privileged to get the benefit of the doubt, who has a lot of support, got lots of deserved upvotes. Do you not see this as a problem?
@Marshmallow Just affirms my suggestion that meta.se regulars are an "exclusive" sort, hugging each other in support, because of their believe that non regulars are clueless.
@Namaste Oh, that's the rare call-to-sanity I was talking about. It merits its own lengthy debates on whether this is natural and even whether that makes it okay, but even if it's not, as I said, a system that works a majority of the time (doesn't even need to be a significant majority) will take lots of willpower to change that sometimes doesn't exist.
To be entirely fair, I think there is the chance that a sentence-by-sentence copy would not have been downvoted if it wasn't Monica.
@Namaste Not because. Outsiders' cluelessness in an entirely different perception
But yes, both perceptions of 'hugging' and 'considering outsiders clueless' exists. I do agree.
AIWS, the post had a chance of good reception even if it wasn't a member of the 'clique', see all the subtle attempts (It probably makes up half the post) at making it clear it's not accusing, patronizing or antagonizing the audience
@JourneymanGeek I've seen this expressed in this chat and in Shadow's Den. If it's harsh, it's also honest. If you don't want honest, say so. If you want to dismiss me and exile me because you label it as "harsh", that's on you.
I hope I'm not being delusional here by all this. But I mean, I think regulars are conditioned into going to battlestations when discussions like this show up, due to the countless times similar discussions were being accusatory and combative. The smallest hint makes them (me) defensive, it won't otherwise.
@Journey well, that was half an hour ago, I think the discussion can go on.
I agree that downvotes serve a purpose, and some downvoting functionality should remain, but @Tinkeringbell, I think piling on excessive downvotes on questions (-10, -16, -28?), which happens far more frequently on MSE than anywhere else on the network, goes overboard, and seems to be a "pile-up" effect of "i see others think it's bad, so me too!" (The "contagion effect".) — NamasteMay 16 at 16:33
This is not necessarily true
It was even brought up here before and I opined on it
@Marshmallow I appreciate your discussion here. I understand the dynamics, I really do. I empathize. But psychological defenses do not good community moderation make.
@Namaste Most don't act on it. People try to be themselves. If they're blunt or harsh or nice, they usually post in-character comments anyway. But nothing stops them from voting the way they feel they should vote, and I don't think the person who made the post has much to do with it, but the content the post has
Where were we? I think what I meant by my long-winded novel here overall is actually that it's harder to post such things, and by no means impossible, and the scope of what counts as constructive criticism narrows down greatly.
@Namaste @Marshmallow, are you addressing this? Because I beg to differ on that. (You may actually personally vote on content, and not on recognizably of the OP, but that's not true of most regulars here.)
I've been a programmer for nearly 30 years. Like most of you, I have worked with the guy who sits in the corner, seems to know everything, but whom you have to approach with kid gloves if you need to ask him a question. Stack Exchange feels like this now.
I fully understand the need to try to m...
@Marshmallow Thanks for linking this example. It was posted four years ago, and I am here discussing the unfriendliness and dismissiveness demonstrated now on MSE, and some of its intentionally cryptic chat rooms/descriptions.
@Namaste My point still stands. The post is there because it's not 'harsh' towards the regular audience. It's not accusatory, it's not calling them idiots for not understanding the OP's perfect posts, it's not calling mods censors, it's not assuming downvoters have a "God complex" (yeah, we had that one too), and it's not 'pleading for mercy' because they're a nonnative speaker of a 'noob' or some irrelevant category
@Marshmallow There are definitely good things happening on MSE. And I do not believe regulars engage in intentional, malicious behavior. I am simply suggestions that meta regulars do more meta-thinking: stepping away from knee-jerk defensiveness and pats on the back to members of the "us" and vilification of "them", to evaluate the impact of their sometimes-reflexive voting/comments on other users, and their own credibilty on the SE network.
@JourneymanGeek I never consider volunteer mods in the "SE staff" category. (Just wanted to clarify if we're on the same page!) And @Marshmallow I agree.
@Namaste Another personal observation is the jaded recent outlook (especially on meta.SO) where people were so tired of debating the wagon thing that they developed an attitude of "we'll change when new shitposters change", to put it bluntly. It might be what you're hinting at, but again, IME it does leak to meta.SE, but doesn't happen as much
And especially thanks to people like NicolBolas, people started rationally thinking about all these things and take a hard look at themselves and all.
I think things have improved quite a bit since the grim place that the whole metas where back in 2018.
Room for improvement? Definitely. The way it's going is making me hopeful though
The cynical way SE policies are now treated was improving before it stopped. There DOES indeed seem to be a shift in philosophy way more drastically than anything we remember before, but that's not my boat to save
@SonictheBracketedHedgehog Oof, then THAT'S history. I guess maybe talk it through with Journey or Tink though. I don't think it affects the current SE affairs, just what the site looks like, if anyone happens to stumble upon it. Mod opinion should probably suffice
My personal opinion is something like that should be visible to people, just like artifacts in a museum
Not saving any bytes, and definitely not cluttering the site. The only argument against would be respecting Jeff's decision. @Journey @Tink what do you think?
I'm running a rather confusing issue.
I'm trying to pull together data from a couple different tables in an Access 2013 database. No big deal, write a union query, pull the same number of columns, good to go, right? It works fine.
The issue crops up when I create another query to use the resu...
On my PC Stack Exchange websites are very slow. Its response time is almost 5 minutes, and it's too much. Sometimes it loads in 1.5 minutes.
And other websites are loading properly.
I have attached screenshots of Google's response time and Stack Exchange response time.
Stack Overflow's respons...
You get it by asking a question that gets no answers, no votes, no comments, and low views for a week.
In other words, you get it as a consolation prize for asking a bad question.
