Timeline for How should we treat unresearched answers and should we have an additional category of low quality post?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 23, 2017 at 1:04 | comment | added | Gary | Regarding users getting hammered by multiple down votes, as in the linked MSE post, I don't see why the system couldn't just display the voting buttons on low quality posts, that have not yet received any down votes. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 1:01 | comment | added | Gary | Well that's a great shame. If we are expected to down vote these types of answers and not close them, as they take up more than 50 percent of the low quality posts in my experience, the ability to down vote really should be a part of the ELU review system. | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 22:21 | comment | added | Andrew Leach Mod | The ability to downvote low-quality posts has been suggested and declined on MSE. | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 19:05 | comment | added | MetaEd Mod | To go into the question to vote, click the "link" link on the right sidebar. That creates a separate tab in the browser on which you can vote. When you close that tab, you're back to the review queue. | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 18:22 | history | edited | Gary | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Nov 22, 2017 at 18:16 | history | edited | Gary | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 720 characters in body
|
| Nov 22, 2017 at 16:15 | answer | added | MetaEdMod | timeline score: 8 | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 16:12 | comment | added | Gary | Yes the problem with this is it takes far longer, and if you are just trying to clear the bank of reported low quality answers, you don't really want to have to be posting comments every 3 answers if you can help it i think.I guess you copy paste the same thing over and over, but if you're having to do that, I kind of think it would be nice if the system did it for you, if such a change wouldn't be to burdensome to implement. | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 16:09 | comment | added | Mitch | You can always directly make a comment on the question, in addition to putting it on the VLQ queue. | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 15:19 | comment | added | Gary | @ab2 I disagree "no reason needed.". This is fine for random cases when an answer needs to be deleted and there is no appropriate category. But these type of low quality posts appear far more frequently than: 'this is a thank you' , or this is just a 'link'. Yet we have specific responses for those. It would help the people posting these low quality answers to know why the answer was removed, and these types of answers are so prevalent - In my humble opinion if there was only one specific low quality option available, I would say it should be this. Let alone we have many that are seldom used. | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 15:13 | comment | added | Dan Bron | @ab2 Yes, I could definitely bring myself to do that. I’d comment under the lacking answer and give a reasonable amount of time for the user to edit it into shape, but experience tells me only a tiny fraction of users respond to comments and even fewer heed he advice given and edit posts appropriately. | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 15:09 | comment | added | ab2 | Sven Yargs explained why the answer was wrong as did Mari-Lou A. I would have flagged the answer as VLQ, and if I encountered it in the queue, voted to delete, no reason needed. We don't need a new category; the categories we have are flexible enough. As for filling out a low quality answer, that is a kindness for a new user and sets several good examples for the new user. An established user should know better, and deserves only a comment and a downvote and a flag. Taking a new user's answer and writing a better answer based on his idea -- @Dan Bron could you bring yourself to do that? | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 12:58 | comment | added | Dan Bron | My previous comment was supposed to start with +1. The rebellious keyboard stikes again. | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 12:26 | comment | added | Dan Bron | +-. I hope adding a new kind of recommend deletion comment is low-effort for the SE team, so it we can see it materialize in real-life. In re: 3, I am really not a fan of other people editing in read here on a poster’s behalf. That seems to encourage precisely the wrong kind of behavior. For answers, if the answer really is helpful and adds value to the questions, then the “rescuer” should instead post a competing newer with the same fundamental response more more substantial corroboration and evidence. That answer will get upvote and the lazy user’s languish in obscurity. | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 10:02 | comment | added | user 66974 | Thanks for showing sensibility for posts that are potentially interesting but lack the required research to be "viable". The general attitude, and that is valid also for questions, is to put them on hold or recommend deletion. The result is often a waste of potentially good posts for the sake of "sticking to the rules". Where is the trade-off? I still don't know. | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 9:14 | history | edited | Gary | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 308 characters in body
|
| Nov 22, 2017 at 9:08 | history | asked | Gary | CC BY-SA 3.0 |