Timeline for Do we care about edit flooding? Should we be doing anything?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:43 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/ with https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 10, 2011 at 23:08 | comment | added | James Mertz | @digitxp that's why i don't use fakebook ;P | |
| Aug 10, 2011 at 21:05 | comment | added | digitxp | @KronoS My Facebook News Feed is "balanced" and I often feel like a stalker as a result. I don't think that a "smart" or balanced Activity feed can work out well. | |
| Aug 10, 2011 at 20:21 | comment | added | James Mertz | @digitxp not exactly. In fact it would allow for the activity feed to be balanced with the new questions and edits. | |
| Aug 10, 2011 at 19:06 | comment | added | digitxp | @Kronos Delaying any edit would defeat the purpose of having it in the Activity feed in the first place. | |
| Aug 10, 2011 at 18:27 | comment | added | James Mertz | what do you mean @digitxp? | |
| Aug 10, 2011 at 18:16 | comment | added | digitxp | @KronoS But then is it truly an active question anymore? | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 23:54 | comment | added | James Mertz | Why not have the edits only be reflected during off peak hours? Similar to @Breakthroughs suggestion but during a better time for the site. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 17:38 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | @Breakthrough No hard feelings. I agree that a better solution is always a better avenue, but I believe in the philosophy that, until a fix or change is implemented, there are always ways to take advantage of what resources we do have, if we are willing. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 17:37 | comment | added | Breakthrough | @Grace Note I apologize, in retrospect I think my comment may have come off a bit strongly. I agree that it would mitigate the impact significantly, but I also have to agree with digitxp - there is more then one way to change the way edits are currently handled, in order to avoid having to shift when the edits are done in the first place. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 17:35 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | @Breakthrough I'm not suggesting you plan your lives around it. Just that in general, if you want to avoid a significant impact on traffic, then the natural conclusion is that it is best done when there isn't a lot of traffic. Not every edit job is going to even have that impact, but when it does, I don't think it is harmful to simply try it at a less active time. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 17:16 | comment | added | Breakthrough | @digitxp agreed. It might be wiser to perform massive edit jobs during low-period hours, but how can you expect moderators to plan their own lives around that? And for what it's worth, even if the massive edit jobs are pushed down within an hour, the impression of the site to all those users who looked at it before will be left. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 17:13 | comment | added | digitxp | I disagree with your advice to do editing in non-peak hours. One shouldn't have to work around a site's algorithms to make it better. That would be comparable to going on Facebook and posting on people's walls to control who appears on your profile's top friends list. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 17:10 | comment | added | random Mod | Can we get stats on when a site has its lowest views? | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 16:56 | history | answered | Grace NoteStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |