Timeline for High reputation users having trouble understanding Super User?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2020 at 13:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:18 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Jun 15, 2012 at 13:41 | comment | added | HaydnWVN | Or provide rep for closing questions? More rep generated for the more members who vote to close - vastly unpopular questions would generate just as many votes to close as people throwing in answers incase it slips though? Sure fixes the 'bad-feeling' when someone would rather answer and turn a 'blind eye' for the rep gain; than voting to close... :) | |
| Jun 8, 2012 at 8:37 | comment | added | malexmave | I think vote to close a duplicate should not need only one vote, but maybe it could be bumped down to two or three, or be tied to the rep of the poster in some way (2 votes for rep <500, 3 votes for <1000, ... up to the limit of the (current, I think) 5 votes at some point). This way, the "lone voter" can not shut down things on his own (Think of the griefing possibilities), but two active users could close dupes without mod attention. | |
| Nov 4, 2011 at 13:05 | comment | added | Iterator | So, to summarize, the enablers of the problem are the high rep users, and the people who most benefit from the problem are the high rep users. At least now I understand why the question quality is disappointing. | |
| Aug 26, 2011 at 17:40 | comment | added | Synetech | What do you expect? The same thing happened with TV.com and any other “knowledge/database/encyclopedia” site that provides points, levels, and medals/badges to users for contributing: it turns into a game (an MMOG to be specific). In forums, usually the only status symbol is the number of posts, but some forums offer all kinds of bling and flair as well, which makes them no better. Don’t get me wrong, these things provide a tacit incentive for people to contribute and help, but it also makes people do so for the wrong reasons. It’s like how achievements are now endangering games themselves. | |
| Aug 25, 2010 at 12:14 | vote | accept | BinaryMisfit | ||
| Jul 22, 2010 at 18:01 | history | migrated | from meta.stackexchange.com (revisions) | ||
| Feb 8, 2010 at 16:23 | comment | added | Paul Nathan | @fretje: He was clear. Understanding just required awareness of a referenced concept. | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 16:17 | comment | added | fretje | @Jared: Why would I have to read a whole Wikipedia article to understand a mans opinion about something. Why can't he (@Jeff) just be clear? | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 16:14 | comment | added | Ether | Now I understand why Diago is so hated. Thank you. | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 15:20 | comment | added | Jared Harley | @fretje - Haha, sorry - It's difficult to explain criminological theories in 600 chars - check out the Wikipedia link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixing_Broken_Windows | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 15:13 | comment | added | fretje | @Jared: I'm not sure you made it clear now. :-s (no offence) | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 14:48 | comment | added | Jared Harley | @fretje - "Broken Windows" is a criminology theory that letting small acts of crime slide (say, littering), eventually leads to more serious acts of crime. It suggests that if you aggressively target the small stuff, more serious acts of crime will fall. There is actually not a lot of empirical evidence to prove whether this is in fact true. I think Jeff is saying that he's not sure if these questions are indeed "broken windows" that lessen community value and encourage more and more serious acts of "crime" in our community. (Crime, of course, being that which we here deem against the rules) | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 10:02 | comment | added | Diago | @Shog9 - Having that power, it's a major headache. Enemy building 101 tip 1: Close a question. | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 9:53 | comment | added | alex | @Shog9 a nightmare? Probably endless closing and opening. Still, not such a bad idea, especially if used correctly. | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 9:51 | comment | added | Shog9 | I wonder what would happen... if closing a question as a duplicate required only one vote... And re-opening duplicates required two votes. | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 9:46 | comment | added | fretje | @Jeff: What do you mean? Can you clarify? | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 9:34 | comment | added | ChrisF | @pi - no, not really. | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 9:25 | comment | added | alex | @ChrisF I know you do, there are quite a few users that do the site a lot of good, and you're definitely one of them. I hope I didn't offend you by my answer and comments. | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 9:23 | comment | added | ChrisF | @pi - I close what I see, but while I'm on the site most days it's only sporadically. | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 9:20 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | and yet, oddly enough, this behavior you are describing is OK with the specific exception of questions that should be closed -- which lead to "broken windows" arguments about what should and should not be allowed | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 9:07 | comment | added | Diago | @pi Understood. I have seen this and we do appreciate the work of the many, unfortunatly the few is causing us headaches as well. | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 9:06 | comment | added | alex | @Diago me, random and fretje are active closers, but it's a frustrating job if we have to rely on moderators to help us out every time. We're completely powerless, no one is willing to help us in any way. | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 9:03 | comment | added | Diago | Sadly this is one of two things I want to see stopped. 1. The diamond moderators having to close every question, 2. Users staying away because of the actions of others. | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 9:02 | comment | added | alex | Bitter response. I fully relate to how you feel, though. | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 8:45 | comment | added | Ivo Flipse | Heey I'm in that first column! But your point is true | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 8:41 | history | answered | random | CC BY-SA 2.5 |