Shog9

Whatever you do, don't be stupid and use the delete + lock + edit trick to avoid bumping. There are worse things than a trashed homepage.

If you NEED say, 10k edits... it's gonna take days for that script to run. Might as well just wave bye-bye to any use of the homepage for that period. For a few dozen to a few hundred edits - stuff that isn't worth finding someone to use the built-in tools for - script away and deal with the fallout (which is to say, communicate what you're planning well ahead of time)

Not perfect, but nothing is.

It's not worth solving, IMHO. The few times I've cared, I just record the visible questions first and then re-bump them upon completion.

Realistically, avoiding rate limits is trivial - just pick a sensible delay and, upon hitting a rate limit, back off for a minute or so. All of this can be done very efficiently with scripts except for the bit @Catija mentions: avoiding absolutely trashing the front page on quiet sites.

@VLAZ I have such a script around somewhere - it loads the tags on each post first before applying changes, so as to avoid the need to pre-load all affected questions. But another sensible approach, and one I've used for very large and complicated operations, is to use SQL to generate rewrite requests based on post data - the downside of doing this as a normal user is the lack of access to current (up to the minute) data; using SEDE for this is likely to corrupt some posts.

Four days more than Creation, so you KNOW it's good

@Catija yep, nother truckload

@Catija here's where this gets fun: I can review a question to say "do not close" and then vote to close it

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.

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.

FWIW, I was the last voter...

That's why I used that example 😋

The systems are fundamentally different stack levels; they cannot have parity.

So, I'm distracted, but... Lemme know if this makes sense @cat @rob ?

What I'm looking at 😁

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...

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.

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.

Reviews do not act like votes. They are not nearly as restricted as votes, and probably can't be.

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.

Here's a counter example: meta.stackexchange.com/posts/103053/timeline

Lemme find something...

...not sure that's entirely true, but...

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.

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.

@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)

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.

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.

Remember, the close queue exists to get eyeballs on votes that were probably going to age away unseen otherwise; think, small tag or site.

This gets complicated in practice because of how voting works and how questions can (d)evolve over time.

Good phone so far; excellent battery life

@Rob I switched to the 4a 5g at the start of the year - tmo/fi cut my ph1 usable bands to the bone

Well, I hate the whole, "everyone left and I'm tired and there are dirty glasses everywhere" thing. But the biggest motivation is just... I don't like sitting still. Gotta be something to do; walking, working.

I'm that guy who starts washing dishes at a party, as a conversation starter

Also I'm just not... All that shiny as a person. I respect R, but just can't really get into it

It's looking up 🙂

So, y'know... If you wanna promote the exercise, write an answer! 😜

My gut feeling is that a question which gets 10 answers is more likely to get an 11th than a question with 1 and a bounty is to get a 2nd.

Personally, I find thought-provoking existing answers more motivating than bounties.

@ShadowWizardisVaccinating y'all can do what you want; I would humbly suggest waiting until that situation arises before discussing it though.

@Shog9 I settled on one of those:

@Tinkeringbell it's nowhere close. It's just my favorite answer.

@Ollie Cant help but wish it was the one about water, but... I'll take it 🙂

Ok. So how do we disguise chipmunks as bees?

@Rob depends; how many chipmunks can you eat?

Eh, everything is chaotic the first few times. I'm sure after a few more strikes all the kinks in communication will be ironed out... /s

FWIW as a ... Much less-recently separated employee... I'd cosign @AMtwo's observations here. Everyone knows the term "bus factor" - you don't put a responsibility on a single person unless it doesn't matter much; critical stuff gets redundancy. That there's no redundancy here speaks volumes about how little SO as an organization cares about all of these concerns.