Timeline for answer to What’s Next for Curation by Starship
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 days ago | comment | added | MisterMiyagi | @user400654 Why don’t we go all in and rename downvotes to close votes then, while we are at it? Seems like you suggest going full circle to what we already have. | |
| 2 days ago | comment | added | user400654 | @MisterMiyagi i would generally prefer for downvotes on questions to be at least somewhat recoverable, on answers... sure, they shouldn't be, but on questions i don't see why not. If the problems caused by the votes are "cleared", whatever that means in the new system, then the downvotes for that reason should also be cleared. :shrug: | |
| Feb 27 at 6:09 | comment | added | MisterMiyagi | @user400654 Even in the light of a hypothetical new SO curation, conflating downvotes and close votes like this doesn’t make sense. Closure is the thing that questions can recover from and that can be handed off from curator to curator. (Down)voting is not recoverable, it’s not transferable, and it goes a metric ton more towards telling people they did a bad thing and all the drama that involves. | |
| Feb 27 at 4:33 | comment | added | user400654 | there's no reason downvotes can't still serve that purpose with this new setup | |
| Feb 27 at 2:13 | comment | added | Starship | @user400654 Downvotes serve the purpose of telling users their content is not useful and/or not well researched/explained. That's different than close votes. While explaining your reason for downvoting is nice, its not required, and this has been discussed literally hundreds of times. It's this way for good reason. And my point is that there is a difference between you, who understands the site and thinks it should be slightly different, and what appears to be the understanding of senior management, who don't seem to get the difference between downvotes and close votes on current SO. | |
| Feb 26 at 22:38 | comment | added | user400654 | I also see this as a positive because it can lead to these votes not being just ignored because there were more upvotes casted than downvotes. Attached reasons give it more sticking power and can lead to the problems actually getting fixed. | |
| Feb 26 at 22:35 | comment | added | user400654 | I do understand the site, and get your point... but i still don't see what's wrong with taking these two tools (downvotes and closevotes) and connecting them, so that they both can lead down the same curation path. Downvotes on questions as they exist today serve no purpose other than leading to deletion, which close votes are better at dealing with because they have an explicit reason attached to them that can lead to whatever is wrong with the post being fixed. If what's wrong can't be fixed, fine, let that be a feedback option too. | |
| Feb 26 at 22:30 | comment | added | Starship | @user400654 My point is that’s a bad idea, and anyone who understood the site would get that. That they don’t is concerning | |
| Feb 26 at 22:21 | comment | added | user400654 | If you look at the section "Needs more focus / low quality" they clearly seem to be indicating that downvotes on questions will be changed to serve the purpose that close votes do currently. Surely, if that's their intent, it makes sense to see the two statements as related in their mind. | |
| Feb 26 at 22:19 | comment | added | user400654 | whether they should or shouldn't doesn't necessarily change what they were trying to say when they said it, does it? | |
| Feb 26 at 22:18 | comment | added | Starship | @user400654 Downvotes and close votes should be different. And “I dislike it” should never be a reason to do either | |
| Feb 26 at 22:15 | comment | added | user400654 | My take is this particular bit was related to voting, not closure, and is tied to the intent to add an extra step to downvotes that more or less encompasses the purpose of existing close votes as well, on top of just generally not liking a given post. | |
| Feb 26 at 22:11 | history | edited | Starship | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 66 characters in body
|
| Feb 26 at 22:06 | history | answered | Starship | CC BY-SA 4.0 |