Timeline for Too many upvotes for poor quality answers
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 17:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 16, 2011 at 17:09 | comment | added | acjay | Randolf's suggestion sounds like a plausible solution, but I would amend that by making the auto-publish delay relative to the time when the question was posted, not the answer. That way, if someone sees a relatively simple question right when it's posted, they know that they have a little bit of time to craft a high-quality response before the floodgates open. This, of course, has the drawback of delayed gratification for the question-asker. | |
| Sep 16, 2011 at 17:08 | comment | added | acjay | To me, the issue is when a user, hungry for rep, spots a relatively simple question, they see the opportunity to get some quick upvotes, but that can only really work if they get there first. These users want to be helpful, but they also want to get credit for their assistance. If they spend the time crafting a high-quality answer, by the time they submit it, there could already be three other answers, and they've become lost in the shuffle. | |
| Sep 1, 2011 at 3:27 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSuper_User/status/109105091696529408 | ||
| Aug 22, 2011 at 15:59 | answer | added | uSlackr | timeline score: -2 | |
| Aug 21, 2011 at 21:12 | answer | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | timeline score: 16 | |
| Aug 21, 2011 at 0:01 | answer | added | slhck | timeline score: 9 | |
| Aug 20, 2011 at 3:40 | comment | added | Sathyajith Bhat Mod | @RandolfRichardson Downvotes on questions used to result in a -1 rep to you too, but not anymore. | |
| Aug 20, 2011 at 3:15 | comment | added | Randolf Richardson | Downvotes aren't free? I have no idea what that means, I just noticed that downvotes are cast from time-to-time, but that the reasons aren't always clear. If you're going to do something that permits/encourages more downvoting, then I suspect that we'll also see a lot more people asking "Why are people downvoting my Question/Answer?" It seems to be a problem already where people often ask, and many people don't seem to bother to provide any explanation (although I've noticed that downvotes get retracted on occasion in the face of such questions, which I also find somewhat suspicious). | |
| Aug 20, 2011 at 3:12 | comment | added | Randolf Richardson | @Ivo Filpse: Short posts (e.g., under 3 lines or less than 500 characters) could be placed in a temporary moderation queue for users with less than 5,000 reputation points, then if after a certain amount of time (calculated based on reputation points where fewer points equates to a longer time-period) the answer could be automatically permitted if no decision is made by a moderator. (Perhaps users with more than 15,000 reputation points could also be included with those moderators for these purposes.) | |
| Aug 20, 2011 at 0:19 | comment | added | Ivo Flipse Mod | Any suggestions for how we can disincentivise such behavior? Personally, I'm starting to think that downvotes on answers should be free as well, so users will think twice before posting just anything to be the fastest. | |
| Aug 20, 2011 at 0:17 | history | edited | sblair | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Aug 20, 2011 at 0:11 | comment | added | Randolf Richardson | Some people might be providing short Answers so that theirs will be first since I've noticed that a lot of folks feel that they should Accept the first Answer to their Question despite there being another Answer that is the same but was posted a few minutes later (probably because it took longer to write -- it could have been started earlier for all we know). It's almost as if there's a feeling of "this is the ethical thing to do" (loyalty isn't necessarily ethical) mixed in there somehow. | |
| Aug 19, 2011 at 23:49 | comment | added | Simon Sheehan | I also think once people see it has lots of votes, they just throw another on. | |
| Aug 19, 2011 at 23:43 | comment | added | Randolf Richardson | I suspect that many people vote for the Accepted answer (just because it is the Accepted answer) without even reading it, and do so without bothering to vote for other answers that are helpful, provide screen shots (as my answer in that question certainly did), are insightful, or add value in other ways. | |
| Aug 19, 2011 at 23:27 | answer | added | user59659 | timeline score: -4 | |
| Aug 19, 2011 at 23:26 | answer | added | Simon Sheehan | timeline score: 11 | |
| Aug 19, 2011 at 23:03 | history | asked | Ivo FlipseMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |