Timeline for Is over-vigilant monitoring of questions driving people away from the site?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
34 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 27, 2021 at 2:26 | comment | added | user1271772 | I can't suggest an edit on your answer, but Matter Modeling Stack Exchange has 156/1858=8.4% closed. That may seem high, but Physics.SE is now at 30211/198142 = 15.2% closed. | |
| Sep 30, 2021 at 7:06 | comment | added | TRC | Note also that most close-voters do leave comments about why they're voting in such a way (e.g., This question doesn't make sense because ... or Please note that Physics Stack Exchange isn't a homework help site...) - 8 close votes (5 first, 3 reopen-reviewers later) on my first question here, and NOT A SINGLE word of explanation as to the reason of close vote. What a blissful, utopic scenario for a new user, isn't it? | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 31, 2015 at 20:00 | history | edited | Kyle Kanos | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarified 2nd paragraph
|
| Dec 31, 2015 at 18:21 | history | edited | Kyle Kanos | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added more as to why the metrics make sense so idiots stop thinking otherwise, added details on close rates here vs other sites as to why we're not doing something wrong
|
| Dec 30, 2015 at 20:52 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | @CaffeinatedPerson: over-moderation would lead to closing more questions over time, plain and simple. This is by all measures not happening. I would also like to see evidence of a closed, disrespectful environment on this site. If you can't provide it, then perhaps you should stop saying it? | |
| Dec 30, 2015 at 20:29 | comment | added | CaffeinatedPerson | Taken together, this "logic" still doesn't pan out. For the most part, the issue of over-vigilant monitoring is a qualitative issue, not one that statistics can support without context (one way or the other). The number of questions closed could be extremely high, and yet still be reasonable (e.g. spam). It could go the other way too--few closed questions, overly strict close methodology. At the end of the day, those of us who would like to see Physics SE become a more open, collegial (and respectful) environment merely have a difference of opinion. | |
| Dec 30, 2015 at 19:46 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | @CaffeinatedPerson: Yes, each point alone is useless, hence you should combine all three points to come to the inevitable conclusion that such thoughts of "over-moderation" is just nonsense. Note further that combining #1 and #3 together shows that a lesser fraction of questions are being closed (rising Qs asked vs static Qs closed). So I'm honestly not sure the relevance of any of your comments there. | |
| Dec 30, 2015 at 19:36 | comment | added | CaffeinatedPerson | Not one of the three points actually has anything to do with whether or not Physics SE is being over-moderated. It could mean Physics SE is more visible in search engines, but it says nothing of general approval of the methodology used to close questions. As for the last point, the number of questions closed could go down---that still doesn't mean that too many questions are being closed based on an overly strict methodology. | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 13:53 | comment | added | Josh Zmijewski | @KyleKanos I know. I understand, and, I suppose it's a good system, it obviously works to do what it does, and to do it well! It's just not the way I personally would do things, like I said, if I owned the site, but I don't, so, it's sort of irrelevant, right? :-) | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 13:40 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | @JoshZmijewski: In some cases, such a general site doesn't exist within the SE network, what can one do in that case? Note though that closed questions can get reopened, so closure isn't a permanent status (e.g., someone edits their closed question to be something on topic or someone asked a question that was not correctly closed). There are checks & balances in place here. | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 13:36 | comment | added | Josh Zmijewski | @KyleKanos That is true, I am openly curious. And basically, I of course would close questions on the Physics SE site that weren't related to physics, but I would move them to a general site so they could get some answer. And then the "what else do we not want here?" is where I would put a stop to what would seem to me like a very slippery slope (if I owned it) because basically I feel like it would eventually lead to an answer of "we don't want anything, no questions are good enough!" and it would collapse into a singularity of too-high standards. Which is ironic. Singularity, get it? | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 12:54 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | And I don't think you're stepping on toes, you're a relatively new member to the site & appear to be openly curious about the workings of the site. I hope I'm not stepping toes here, I'm just trying to explain how/why things are the way they are here (at least how I perceive it to be this way). | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 12:51 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | @JoshZmijewski: So if you owned the site, you'd not close questions about chemistry? Or biology? Or programming? With your anything goes attitude towards questions, your "physics" Q&A site would quickly devolve to "generic" Q&A site. We don't want that here, we want questions about physics, so there must be a way to prevent such devolution. Once your start that thought process, you must follow it to the logical conclusion of "What else do we not want here" and after ~5 years, you come to what Physics Stack Exchange has become. | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 12:48 | comment | added | Josh Zmijewski | @KyleKanos Well, I am glad to hear that you don't feel any power in it, though it would seem to me that others do. Well, I certainly know that I'm in the vast minority opinion here, but I will simply say that if I personally owned this site(s), I wouldn't allow the closing of questions. Does it need to be done? I guess most people's opinion is that it does, though I just don't necessarily agree is all. But if people consider it necessary, then I suppose my view might simply be in error? I don't wish to step on any toes. It's just my opinion. | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 12:32 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | @JoshZmijewski: The necessity of closing questions is to ensure quality, not because they can't be answered (though there are some questions that can't be answered because the question doesn't make sense & are thusly closed). Not sure about others, but I feel no power in downvoting questions/answers, but it most certainly needs to be done. | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 12:18 | comment | added | Josh Zmijewski | @Floris Well, thank you. Though I'm not planning to leave just yet. The reason I point out what I see as a recent negative trend is so that people can fix the problem, not to just condemn the site, which I used to find very extraordinary, and I think can be again. For one thing, I really don't see the necessity of closing questions, or at least, of closing so many questions. I guess people think it looks bad to have unanswered questions sitting around, but I don't like to see SE seeming to turn into a contest of who can feel more powerful by downvoting the most questions. :/ | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 19:53 | comment | added | Floris | @JoshZmijewski I am sorry you feel that way. There will be negative influences on all large sites; I hope there are enough positive ones to offset them. But it sounds like for you, there aren't... Good luck, wherever you go. | |
| Dec 26, 2015 at 13:37 | comment | added | Josh Zmijewski | @matscienceman I can say that I've had extensive and increasing (as of late) negative experiences all over SE that makes me want to take my “business” somewhere else, even if it's someplace awful like Yahoo Answers. SE's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness: it attracts experts, and experts, like any technology, can be a positive or negative force. At their most positive, they can inform, teach, and spread knowledge. At their most negative, they just become this priest-like caste who hoard knowledge for their exclusive use and try to deny anyone else access to it. | |
| Dec 23, 2015 at 10:42 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | That's true. The data might be better if one ignores a window of newer questions to allow for automatic closures, though. | |
| Dec 23, 2015 at 10:10 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | @EmilioPisanty: There may be some data there, however it's going to be skewed by the fact that some closed questions get deleted. I personally don't trust any data dealing with closed questions on SEDE. | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 22:44 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | @matscienceman Many of the metrics you mention in your first comment are susceptible to investigation via the Stack Exchange Data Explorer. If indeed those ratios are on your side, show us! | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 11:09 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | cc the above: @DavidZ. Not sure if that particular metric was ever proposed | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 11:04 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | @matscienceman: Perhaps the number of users who asked one closed question versus the number of users who asked multiple questions without closing would be a more appropriate statistic. The problem with that, though, is that closed & downvoted questions are deleted, so we couldn't get proper statistics. | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 4:04 | comment | added | David Z Mod | It's always interesting to speculate on what statistics would properly show the health of the site, specifically with respect to whether closing questions is driving people away. I think we've done that before, but it's certainly not a closed matter (pun intented). | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 3:56 | history | edited | 299792458 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Minor typo fix
|
| Dec 22, 2015 at 2:24 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Mod | In marketing every sale is a good sale, but the users of Physics have repeatedly voted that they don't want a lot of "help me do my homework" business (or indeed non-homework related question at he same level of sophistication), repeat or otherwise. | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 2:10 | comment | added | matscienceman | In marketing, they make a clear distinction between initial business development and repeat business. I was simply pointing out that the stated evidence above says more about initial development of site traffic, than it does about repeat business after a negative experience, which was the nature of the query. And the stats that I suggested are targeted at such questions. That said, I really did appreciate what you said after that - thanks. | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 2:00 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | Your theory is that this site is driving people away by closing questions, the evidence I gave does not display that: more people are asking more questions with the same level of closure of the period. There is no need to make up more stats that don't even make sense. | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 1:52 | comment | added | matscienceman | I'm all for evidence contradicting my query. However, the evidence that would is 1. Ratios between closed questions and accepted questions after first closure going down 2. Ratios of closed questions to open questions going down The evidence above is more about popularity of the site, which is perhaps driven primarily by coming first on Google searches | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 1:32 | history | answered | Kyle Kanos | CC BY-SA 3.0 |