Timeline for On Answering Word Requests
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 22, 2018 at 7:34 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | I don't feel that the mod made a mistake in putting the question on hold in the first place, in fact he made a good call but I do know his aversion to SWRs clouded his judgement when the OP fixed the problem(s) which led him to abuse his privilege. Regardless, I could overlook something like that, the question was reopened after all but, unfortunately, that's not the worst part. | |
| Aug 22, 2018 at 7:32 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | @MetaEd Just to be clear, a mod (almost immediately) put on hold a question, the question was subsequently improved and the essential requirements met. To show goodwill I voted to reopen it. The same mod who had put the original post on hold then visited the reopen queue and voted to keep it closed thereby preventing experienced users, who were more emotionally detached, to formally assess whether the question could be reopened. The only avenue available was completely dependent on the front page activity. | |
| Aug 21, 2018 at 21:17 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | @MetaEd Tomorrow will be interesting. And I'm so disappointed because I do like and respect tchrist. But this is too much. | |
| Aug 21, 2018 at 21:12 | comment | added | MetaEd Mod | @Mari-LouA If you feel a moderator has made a mistake, or used poor judgment, you can flag the question for review by the whole mod team, and you can contact the SE support team. Speaking as a moderator, oversight is always welcome. | |
| Aug 21, 2018 at 21:12 | comment | added | MetaEd Mod | @Mari-LouA True, it takes one moderator's vote on an item in the review queue for the action to be taken. SE gives moderators that privilege, and expects them to use it. Moderators are not supposed to shrink from voting, or wait until they see how other people vote. They are expected to go ahead now and do the right thing. So when a moderator marks a question "leave closed" and it goes off the queue, that's normal. | |
| Aug 21, 2018 at 20:13 | comment | added | Jason Bassford | @Mari-LouA I just cast the final vote to reopen the question. Anybody asking a question should be given more than an hour to clarify what they mean . . . | |
| Aug 21, 2018 at 20:07 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | @tchrist I just looked at the reopen review and saw this english.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/302807 this is intolerable. You have singlehandedly closed the reopen review queue. You didn't even wait for two users to cast their votes. Seriously, I'm flabbergasted. | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 23:58 | comment | added | Mitch | @sumelic SWRs are historically both poor and entertaining questions - that is well documented. But tchrist is decrying the answers to such questions that come in the form the OP describes. That also happens to be old news. | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 23:33 | comment | added | herisson | @tchrist: You know, you can just put single-word-requests on your ignored tags list. That's what I do. I realize that as a moderator, you may feel some responsibility for the quality of posts on this site, but there are other moderators who don't seem to have so much of a negative reaction to SWRs as a class. Since the community has expressed that they still want SWRs on this site, I don't think it's appropriate to wage war on this category of questions. | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 22:46 | comment | added | tchrist Mod | The are NOT useful posts in the SE sense. If you want Yahoo Answers or Urban Dictionary, you know where to find it. Please go read the first page of this drivel. 99% pure crap and you know it. There is nothing expert about this. | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 22:39 | comment | added | tchrist Mod | Because we're 100% pure crap now. I refuse to pretend otherwise. I used to not care, caught up in the hunt for gaming the system. Now that I don't game the system, I can't stand what it looks like. It doesn't matter if it's "helpful". It will never help anybody else, and it is not an expert answer. It's crapola. It is just a proofwriting request. We don't do writing requests. That hole has no bottom. Nor does this one, for it is the same blooping hole. | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 22:36 | comment | added | tchrist Mod | @JJJ You know what? I don't care about ad hominems. The site quality is so miserable right now that I'm happy to delete every stinking one of those. Period. We've become a joke. This isn't what SE wanted us to be: see Shog's post again. | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 22:07 | comment | added | Lumberjack | @tchrist it is obvious that you don't like word requests, but I would prefer to discuss this issue within the context of my original question. You criticised the way in which I answered, and I'm still trying to understand why. I'm sorry, but your responses here haven't yet helped shed any light on the subject for me. | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 20:39 | comment | added | tchrist Mod | @Lumberjack Yes, do two things. First read this. Now go through this page and try to find even one good question. Yes, you'll find one, but it will take you a while and while you're doing that you'll notice how miserable at least 95% (19 out of 20) of the answers are. These aren’t good questions, and not expert answers that will ever help anybody else: they are useless oneliners that drag down the site quality while being reputation lightning rods. | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 16:34 | comment | added | Lumberjack | @tchrist Could you expand on that? In what way do you feel that the SE model isn't suited to an answer of the sort I have detailed here? | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 15:57 | comment | added | tchrist Mod | @Lumberjack You may well feel that way, but I don't believe the SE model is suited to those answers. If that's what people want as answers, then I don't think these questions should be allowed. | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 15:30 | comment | added | Lumberjack | @Mitch I feel like the definition of the word is a suitable explanation a lot of the time. | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 14:31 | comment | added | Lawrence | In the Main question this Meta was motivated by (cf the "completely new idea" / VoD question), the question itself has very little to go on. That question was posed by a new visitor, so they might not have been aware of the SWR checklist. But since the question has been left open by the community, I don't think the question contained enough for Lumberjack to say much more of relevance to the OP. | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 13:53 | comment | added | Mitch | @Lawrence Good point, but the reader may not know themselves why. A single word suggestion may be recognizable by many people, but not by all, and so the explanation is needed. | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 13:46 | comment | added | Lawrence | Not my downvote, but I feel the boilermaker story is relevant. Looking up the dictionary entry is easy. Knowing which entry to look up - that's the trick. :) | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 13:22 | history | answered | Mitch | CC BY-SA 4.0 |