Timeline for Some issues with a recent action that was taken regarding the Root Access chat bot
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
43 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:25 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:18 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:11 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Nov 15, 2013 at 20:33 | answer | added | Zirak | timeline score: 35 | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 16:36 | vote | accept | allquixotic | ||
| Nov 13, 2013 at 16:00 | answer | added | Journeyman GeekMod | timeline score: 26 | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 22:21 | answer | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | timeline score: -5 | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 20:27 | comment | added | rlemon | Unfortunately the chat has no private messaging options. Otherwise this may have been considered. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 20:16 | comment | added | Kevin Panko | Maybe have the bot send a private message to new users? Whatever the group wants to do is fine with me, I don't even use the chat! | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 20:11 | comment | added | rlemon | To add to my last comment: We have tried to just pin said message, and include it in the description. However we found it was much more effective (and actually being read) when the user got a ping specifically to them containing the information. This is why it is useful to us, and this is why the JavaScript room would like it to stay. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 20:10 | comment | added | rlemon | @KevinPanko I can understand that point. But please also consider what the bot is telling you and how to a regular user that information being told to all participating in the chat at least once might be useful. In the Javascript room I know the message is more along the lines of "Welcome to the chat, Here are the unofficial rules. Please don't ask to ask, just ask and if we are around we'll answer it" - this has saved us from the dreaded "Hey guys! Is it ok to ask a question in here?" which was happening quite frequently in our little slice of SO. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 20:00 | comment | added | Kevin Panko | @rlemon I had no idea I could view the transcript without entering the room, oops. "Detest" is too strong a word; I was only surprised to see that I had disturbed the peace of the chat room by being announced to all. I would say hello back to you or any person, but not to a bot. I just had nothing interesting I wanted to say to the chat room, and no question I wanted to ask. It's fine that I was not anonymous, because I was not trying to hide from anybody. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 19:44 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/super_user/status/400348450216501248 | ||
| Nov 12, 2013 at 19:44 | comment | added | rlemon | @allquixotic or just log out and do the same :P but this is the 'in place' solution as I see it. However incognito window is a good suggestion as well. Cheers! | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 19:43 | comment | added | allquixotic | @rlemon You can just make a new Incognito Window (Chrome) / Private Browsing window (FF) / In-Private Browsing Session (IE) and punch in the room URL, and you won't appear in the room list and can see the chat updated live. Seamless and anonymous chat lurking. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 19:40 | comment | added | rlemon | @KevinPanko the flip side of that is: The bot has no special powers that a regular user doesn't have. I often will ping new users and comment about their name, gravatar, location, etc. I also often creep profiles. If you have made this information public by being on SO, or joining the room then that is perfectly acceptable. Would you detest me greeting you in lieu of a bot? I must re-enforce, the bot is in no way special or above and beyond the system. It adheres to the exact same rules users do in the chat systems. as a side note: view the transcript if you don't want to be on the room list. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 17:27 | comment | added | allquixotic | @KevinPanko That would be a fantastic suggestion for enhancement of the bot if the auto-greeting is ever allowed again. Don't greet someone until they post their first message. Unfortunately, your suggestion came too late, as the auto-greeter is gone until further notice. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 17:11 | comment | added | Kevin Panko | My thoughts on auto-greeting: One day I decided to check out the chat rooms for the first time, just to see what kind of things are talked about. I was greeted by a bot, even though I just wanted to lurk for a while. Not a problem, but it was unwanted and surprising. If the bot would wait until after I send a message, then it would not have ever greeted me, because I never sent anything. This way, the bot can still alert the room that someone new is talking, but not spam everybody when a new lurker pops up. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 16:20 | vote | accept | allquixotic | ||
| Nov 13, 2013 at 16:36 | |||||
| Nov 12, 2013 at 16:02 | history | edited | allquixotic | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
more stuff
|
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:55 | answer | added | balphaStaffMod | timeline score: 20 | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:43 | comment | added | allquixotic | @Sklivvz Well: I have absolutely no desire to keep the objectionable command around, and will remove it at the first opportunity. RE: the auto-greeting, however, I will edit my Q and attempt to distill some of my comments here into making a case for keeping the auto-greeting. Thanks for your input; that really helped! | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:41 | comment | added | Sklivvz | I think your question would be better if you focused on why you think that the command and the autogreeting are great and useful, if you want to convince the community and stack exchange to allow them. As it is, the question is a bit ...unconvincing to me. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:41 | comment | added | allquixotic | If on the other hand we want to add to our community standards that we are not to ping people who have not voluntarily involved themselves in chat by posting, well, I'd be completely fine with that rule, and would expect both users and my bot to obey it. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:40 | comment | added | allquixotic | ...because it seems we are treating a bot differently than we would a human being here, even though balpha's answer to the "are bots specifically allowed" meta.SO post specifically said that bots will be held to the same community standards as regular users, so.... a bit confusing to me. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:39 | comment | added | allquixotic | Also, there are tons of people who come to our room just to lurk, and aside from the one-time ping when the bot first sees them, they're generally able to hang out for days, weeks or months without being disturbed, pinged, or noticed. We have absolutely no problem with that and respect their desire to be left alone. But for the sake of argument, take the example of an overzealous user who is very eager to help people, and manually types a greeting to every new user he sees for the first time. Would we then suspend that user for trying to be too helpful? I'm just asking.... | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:37 | comment | added | allquixotic | @MadScientist Those are valid points, especially RE: not drawing attention to every new user. Regarding the messages as just "noise" or "obtrusive" discounts the fact that some room regulars find it useful to know when a new user has entered the room, because often we will immediately stop some off-topic conversation and prepare to help the user with their question. It's harder for me to notice people joining in the user list on the top right than to see the greeting message, but maybe that's just me. I find it useful; you may not. That's valid, but we'll have to agree to disagree. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:37 | comment | added | Darth Android | @MadScientist Frankly, the chat doesn't get new users often enough for me to find it "noise". There's one every few days or so, that I've noticed. Also, chat room descriptions/topics in general are ignored so often by users new and old alike that it's almost an Internet-wide inside joke that nobody reads chat room topics, simply because they don't know to look for it. Pinging them in-chat is much more effective to give them a one-time notice or bring their attention to it. People asking if they can ask a question is far more annoying to me. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:33 | comment | added | allquixotic | @ThiefMaster This is the first I'm hearing of there being any kind of difference in the allowable behavior/content/etc. between "main" rooms and other rooms. I mean, both "official" rooms and "unofficial" ones are listed side-by-side on the chat.{se,so}.com pages, even under "site", and there's no real distinction in the room description or anywhere else that says "I am the official room and this one is unofficial". Also, SO is a bit of an exception; AFAIK there is no official room for SO because it's such a big user base, so all chat.so.com rooms are unofficial... | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:31 | comment | added | ThiefMaster | Isn't it the "main" room for SuperUser.com? So I'd expect it to be handled a bit differently from rooms such as the JavaScript room which is just "some" room for a site. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:31 | comment | added | Mad Scientist | It is still just noise for everyone else but the new user. If you want to add more text to the room description, just add a link to a page with the long version (like some other chat rooms already do). I also find such a bot rather obtrusive, and I don't think it makes sense to draw attention to every new user if they might just want to lurk in chat | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:29 | comment | added | allquixotic | @ThiefMaster What does "official" mean, though? StackExchange, Inc. does not officially endorse any content posted in the channel. SE employees do not hang out there regularly, or, really, at all. A few site moderators do, but they're part of the community, not part of SE. The site moderators have all seen the bot, and none have raised any objections about any of its functionality to me (well, they did ask about the auto-greeting, but I updated it and made it more helpful, and they stopped complaining). So what does "official" actually mean? Do we only post messages endorsed by SE now? | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:28 | comment | added | Oliver Salzburg Mod | @JourneymanGeek I'm not baffled at all | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:28 | comment | added | allquixotic |
@MadScientist The greeting can be longer than the room description (which will quite quickly get cut off by "..." if it's too long), and appears in the same area as chat messages. It also pings users and is highlighted, so it's more likely they'll read it. Several first-time users have said the message is helpful. For regulars, the message is never displayed. If the bot has ever seen you in the chat before, you won't get the message. Does that change your opinion, or do you still think it's "just noise"?
|
|
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:26 | comment | added | ThiefMaster | I'd assume the suspension happened mostly because: 1) The bot is in the official channel for the site 2) it greets everyone joining and suggesting him to view the command list and 3) that command list contains a questionable command (which would probably be fine by itself but not when advertised in the way I just mentioned) | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:24 | comment | added | Mad Scientist | An auto-greeter is a bad idea in my opinion, for everyone else the message is just noise. If therre is something special about the room new users should know, it should be in the chat description. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:23 | history | edited | allquixotic | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 480 characters in body
|
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:15 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | I'd add that the particular command in question was pretty much never used, and @allquixotic has made an effort to handle having a bot , and adjusting its greeting algorithm to be as unobtrusive y as possible. The channel regulars have not had any issues with the bot, and frankly are a little baffled by this | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 15:08 | history | asked | allquixotic | CC BY-SA 3.0 |