We won’t rehash it too much. We think the argument we made in our modernizing curation proposal covers it well enough.

The only thing that is clear is that your proposal to modernize community curation isn’t supported by the community which suggests the proposal is going against the direction of the community (similar to the grain of wood). Going against the grain of wood results in the wood splintering. I definitely feel the community is struggling and starting to splinter.

It’s extremely frustrating to see that every new experiment and user experience results in absolutely no community moderation and no consequences to users asking out of scope questions using those new experiments and workflows.

We want to take each close reason and move it towards a curation workflow that fits in more reasonably with Stack Overflow today. We want to differentiate “this content doesn’t belong on Stack Overflow” from “this isn’t a question I am interested in,” which is different from “this is high-quality content that is worth promoting”. We want tooling that lets those signals exist independently, and we want curator input on what that actually looks like in practice.

In my opinion, the only individuals who perceive users closing questions they are not interested in are those who lack the motivation to enhance the quality of their questions and are consequently upset that the community deems their question to require improvement.

Additionally, that tooling you describe, is long overdue. It is very difficult for the community to moderate today, the current tools are absolutely abysmal, and are long overdue for a complete overhaul.

We won’t rehash it too much. We think the argument we made in our modernizing curation proposal covers it well enough.

The only thing that is clear is that your proposal to modernize community curation isn’t supported by the community which suggests the proposal is going against the direction of the community (similar to the grain of wood). Going against the grain of wood results in the wood splintering. I definitely feel the community is struggling and starting to splinter.

It’s extremely frustrating to see that every new experiment and user experience results in absolutely no community moderation and no consequences to users asking out of scope questions using those new experiments and workflows. You release a beta website without any ability to downvote or upvote the content, or at least a way to see the score of that content, and the threaded conversations make it difficult to tell the difference between a useless comment and a helpful answer.

We want to take each close reason and move it towards a curation workflow that fits in more reasonably with Stack Overflow today. We want to differentiate “this content doesn’t belong on Stack Overflow” from “this isn’t a question I am interested in,” which is different from “this is high-quality content that is worth promoting”. We want tooling that lets those signals exist independently, and we want curator input on what that actually looks like in practice.

In my opinion, the only individuals who perceive users closing questions they are not interested in are those who lack the motivation to enhance the quality of their questions and are consequently upset that the community deems their question to require improvement. Every “blog” about the decline of Stack Overflow, has one key similarity. They are from users who, asked a question, and refused to improve the quality of their question once they were told the issue was exactly.

Additionally, that tooling you describe, is long overdue. It is very difficult for the community to moderate today, the current tools are absolutely abysmal, and are long overdue for a complete overhaul.