6
$\begingroup$

There is a user who has answered almost 90 questions and gotten, if I added correctly, a net -76 votes. The range of net votes on individual answers is from -9 to +1. This indicates to me that this user is not contributing productively to the site, although this is obviously just my own opinion.

Are the algorithms that block users from contributing endless low-quality answers set by the corporation? Can moderators step in and apply their own judgement?

This user’s profile page indicates that these low-quality answers have already “reached” 20,000 people, which I find disturbing.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Amusingly said user has just commented to tell me one of my most highly upvoted answers "contradicts mainstream science". $\endgroup$ Jan 21 at 5:27
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ it's interesting to see how this example clearly shows the scoring scheme very strongly favours upvotes over downvotes. $\endgroup$ Jan 21 at 14:56

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

There is a user

Thank you for not identifying this user publicly.

Are the algorithms that block users from contributing endless low-quality answers set by the corporation?

Yes. There are a few different “bans,” which are discussed more on the network-wide Meta in various posts. Some low-quality contributors get “throttled,” so that they can only post one question (or answer) per week. For questions, other users are just blocked until their “question record” rises above some threshold. The question record counts every question asked worth +1, but then questions which have negative score, are closed, or have been deleted get -1 for each status. This means that deleting a downvoted and/or closed question makes your posting history “worse,” from the perspective of running up against quality restrictions.

There is a similar set of automatic thresholds for answers. However, some of the automatic bans also account for user reputation, and may not apply to high-reputation users.

[I’m writing this summary without digging though the various Metas to confirm details. If I’ve gotten something wrong, please link to an authoritative post and I’ll fix it.]

Can moderators step in and apply their own judgement?

Yes. Moderators can and do suspend users with a pattern of low-quality contributions. If you think you have identified such a user, please flag one of their posts.

The range of net votes on individual answers is from -9 to +1.

When the moderator team is discussing such a user, there are a few things like this that we usually discuss.

  • Is the user in question an especially prolific poster? At some point I wrote a SEDE query to identify such prolific users. Somebody who is posting several times a day (which, recently, is nobody) is much more likely to attract site attention than somebody who is only dropping by every few weeks.

    Prolific posters pose potential problems whether their answers are high-quality or not. For instance, I happen to be an astounding genius who knows everything about physics and explains with stunning clarity. (sarcasm emoji) But if I were to answer every question, so that the site turned into “rob’s awesome physics blog,” that would be weird and bad for the community.

  • Are the posts in question recently low-quality? People come here to learn, which starts off with not knowing things. Several users have responded to feedback (from the moderators, from the community, or both) about low-quality posts by becoming better writers.

  • Are the posts in question a distraction to the community? We’ve had users in the past who have posted low-quality contributions and then fought about them in comments, in chat, on meta, leading to bad feelings all round. We also have users who attract downvotes, but aren’t disruptive.

answered almost 90 questions and gotten, if I added correctly, a net -76 votes … these low-quality answers have already “reached” 20,000 people

There’s nobody in the SEDE query linked above with a negative mean score on their recent answers. The “reached 20k people” metric works out to about 200 viewers per answer … but I think that counts everybody who loads a page containing an answer, whether they scroll to that answer or not. I wouldn’t take that number seriously.

The next time you notice a bad post by this user, you might raise a flag and point out that it’s part of a pattern of low-quality contributions. Flag histories accumulate, and we may or may not take action immediately, and our response may or may not be visible to you.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I’ve hidden some comments. I didn’t mean for these questions to be a checklist, just to give a sense of the kinds of things the moderators talk about. If you want us to look at this user, raise a flag on a post of theirs. $\endgroup$
    – rob Mod
    Jan 21 at 4:36
  • $\begingroup$ OK, thanks. I’ll do that. $\endgroup$
    – Ghoster
    Jan 21 at 4:36
  • $\begingroup$ So there is no roomba for terrible answers, just terrible questions? $\endgroup$ Jan 21 at 10:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @ZeroTheHero The roomba handles abandoned questions, which aren’t quite the same thing as bad questions. If you happen across a low-quality answer which seems unlikely to ever be salvaged, raise a “very low quality” flag. $\endgroup$
    – rob Mod
    Jan 21 at 15:15
  • $\begingroup$ @rob "questions which have negative score, are closed, or have been deleted get -1 for each status" I recently asked a question that was a low effort, so after getting an insightful comment I quickly deleted it while it was still at zero votes. Do the quote above means that I should rather let that low effort question stay, if I could envision it not getting downvoted, instead of deleting it myself, as I am harming my own profile in eyes of some algorithm? In other words, doesn't it allow for "gaming" the system, leading to decrease of quality, if it's bad to delete your own bad questions? $\endgroup$
    – Kusavil
    Jan 26 at 17:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Kusavil A user who asks and deletes many questions will develop a negative question record; search meta for the formula to see why. To “game” the system, please improve your low-effort question so that you can undelete it and attract answers which are useful to other people. Please do not delete questions when you get an insightful comment; consider the impact on the would-be commenter who started instead on an answer, only to be interrupted by the big orange banner that says THIS QUESTION WAS DELETED AND EVERYTHING YOU HAVE TYPED SO FAR IS GONE FOREVER, YOUR GENEROSITY WAS SQUANDERED. $\endgroup$
    – rob Mod
    Jan 27 at 4:03
  • $\begingroup$ @rob that's a very strong argument you have here, thank you! $\endgroup$
    – Kusavil
    Jan 31 at 18:19

You must log in to answer this question.

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