2
$\begingroup$

Minor issue .. I asked this question:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/223610

Currently the question has the callout:

"Highly active question. You have enough reputation to answer this question. The reputation requirement helps protect this question from spam and non-answer activity."

Not a big deal, but when you click through to it, it's somewhat jarring/confusing in that it speaks of "me" without being aware that I'm the OP.

(Perhaps in such a case it could say something like

"Highly active question. This question, created by you, now has a reputation requirement to answer. The reputation requirement helps protect this question from spam and non-answer activity."

)

||||||
$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ This isn't something we can address on our site specifically. It should be raised on the Main Meta because it will be system-wide. You should leave the feedback as an answer on the announcement question, if it isn't already there. $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 Dec 9 '19 at 19:44
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I don't really see this as a problem. You are, after all, able to answer your own questions (I see now that you in fact did answer this question). That part of the label is accurate. I'd be more concerned about the "highly active question" label on a question that hasn't had activity in over a year. (Obviously that's still another problem with the wording SE chooses) $\endgroup$ – JMac Dec 9 '19 at 19:49
  • $\begingroup$ @JMac I think the intention is that posts don't stay protected for 4 years... Unless, of course, it is being visited/answered/commented on still (and therefore still highly active). Protected questions should have the protection lifted once the threat of low-quality answers due to high visibility passes, but we don't really seek out questions to remove the protection. $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 Dec 9 '19 at 20:00
  • $\begingroup$ @tpg2114 Given all the statistical analysis it sounds like SE has been doing to come up with these changes; you would think that they could recognize that a large amount of protected questions do not get unprotected. Maybe they are trying to push people to use the feature properly? But with the limited number of users who have the privilege, it seems like a weird way to spur on the change. The word use definitely seems to be a bit separated from how the feature is used in practice. $\endgroup$ – JMac Dec 9 '19 at 20:03
  • $\begingroup$ @JMac 'with the limited number of users who have the privilege' ─ SO has 12,000+ users with that privilege. When it comes to the recent thread of changes to the software, I would argue that statements that contain "SE has the needs of non-SO sites in mind when designing these changes" as an unstated assumption are... well, maybe they need some re-examining of their unstated assumptions. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Dec 9 '19 at 20:12
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty True, I was obviously directing it towards users on individual sites with protection privileges, and maybe that is just something SE doesn't care about when its statistics are so heavily weighted towards SO. $\endgroup$ – JMac Dec 9 '19 at 20:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JMac Well, they used to care about the network. I'm just not seeing those signs anymore. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Dec 9 '19 at 22:36
  • $\begingroup$ @tpg2114 - main network, I see what you mean, cheers. If the sysadmins (here) care about the issue, I guess, they can raise it there. $\endgroup$ – Fattie Dec 9 '19 at 22:43
  • $\begingroup$ "I don't really see this as a problem.." @JMac , (note that, I couldn't care less but...) it is definitely a bit jarring when you arrive on it randomly. So, randomly, I had got a score on that QA, notification in "Score" thing top right. I clicked on it to see what it was all about. It then confusingfly said the callout shown. For a moment I was like .. what .. they want me to answer .. wait .. did I answer? Etc. Good analogy - all careful web devs make plurals handled properly, you know, you have one star, you have three stars, you have 10k stars. It would be one extra line of code... $\endgroup$ – Fattie Dec 9 '19 at 22:46
  • $\begingroup$ ...and it's just sloppy to not do it. (Like, as with the plurals, why would you possibly not do it?) Again - it (obviously) causes me or anyone utterly no problems, it's just a thing. $\endgroup$ – Fattie Dec 9 '19 at 22:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Fattie I think it's a bit jarring, because they renamed the feature and made it's purpose more obscure and put it at the top of the question. I don't really see a problem with the notification telling every user eligible that they can answer the question though. I guess I just don't see why the distinction should be made between the OP and every other user, since all with the appropriate rep can answer it, including the one who asked. $\endgroup$ – JMac Dec 9 '19 at 23:12
  • $\begingroup$ seems very true what you said, @JMac $\endgroup$ – Fattie Dec 9 '19 at 23:13
3
$\begingroup$

This has (mostly) already been called out on this answer to the announcement on the Mother Meta, which discusses the protected-question banner on more general grounds.

This issue should be raised on the Mother Meta, either as a comment on that answer pointing out that the wording is especially awkward if you're the OP, or as a separate answer (probably linked in a comment on the already-existing answer).

||||||
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ that seems to resolve it ! $\endgroup$ – Fattie Dec 9 '19 at 22:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Fattie I would strongly encourage you to post this feedback over on MSE. The more voices we have expressing their views there, the more likely it is that SE will understand that it's a serious problem that needs to be addressed. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Dec 10 '19 at 10:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .