33

I mean, I understand that our Twitter account is for publicity, but do we really want to tweet about certain questions automatically?

why 1kb contain 1024 byte? 1kb = 1000 byte

I tired But i don't get the exact answer why 1kb store = 1024 byte . how its is begin done can anyone explain me from starting and what is another thing that 1kb also store 1000 byte . i am getting confuse .i tired following these question

[…]

please don't close this as duplicate . am getting very confuse from these question

I get that not everyone speaks or writes perfect English. This is not a personal accusation – we all make mistakes. And it's good that we as a community can edit in these cases.

But, before such questions are released into the wild of the internet, could we get a chance to review them, and put them into a better shape? Some kind of manual control for Tweets before they are sent?

  • 20
    We mods cannot and yes, everyone agrees the Tweetbot has a very, very poor taste – Ivo Flipse Apr 29 '12 at 21:41
  • 5
    I've often wondered how questions like that get tweeted... – nhinkle Apr 29 '12 at 22:40
  • 13
    Maybe we need 5 votes to tweet - like a VTC, but VTT – Simon Sheehan Apr 29 '12 at 23:41
  • 6
    It'd probably suffice to skip questions with downvotes, flags, or close votes, unless they're very popular or have a very high score. – Daniel Beck Apr 30 '12 at 8:02
  • 2
    The problem is @DanielBeck, these questions get tweeted before it attracts any 'negative' signals, so I would prefer a more moderated process. Give us n-hottest questions of the day, let users with x amount of rep pick which question promotes Super User the best (as in: this is the type of content we as a community would like others to see) – Ivo Flipse Apr 30 '12 at 8:51
  • 1
    I would really like some kind of "review" queue (like the one used for suggested edits). Or, maybe questions should only be tweeted about after a certain grace period, before which it is very likely that it has attracted down or close votes. @ivo – slhck Apr 30 '12 at 9:27
  • 1
    @IvoFlipse Then I wonder what caused this question to be tweeted in the first place... I always thought questions with views or score get tweeted. This one had neither... – Daniel Beck Apr 30 '12 at 9:30
  • All I can do is cite what I know from MSO: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/115722/… meta.stackexchange.com/questions/92235/… But clearly, its not working as intended – Ivo Flipse Apr 30 '12 at 10:00
  • 2
    Also every site suffers from this problem: meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/3252/… and I think Fitness's bot tweeted 50% or more of the stuff I've closed there – Ivo Flipse Apr 30 '12 at 10:02
  • 1
    Oh dear … well, it seems that the close vote filter isn't working, or the filter needs to be hardened (like Daniel said). That would at least help a bit (not discussing the general pros and cons of having an automated Twitter bot rather than doing it manually). @ivo – slhck Apr 30 '12 at 10:28
  • 8
    The algo is to pick out questions that need closing or serious editing – random Apr 30 '12 at 14:42
  • 3
    That looks like a usual Twitter post to me. – galacticninja Apr 30 '12 at 16:47
  • See - meta.stackexchange.com/questions/124994/… – ChrisF May 5 '12 at 21:39
11

I would suggest to implement a system with a buffered pool, which is what some news sites that tweet do to schedule out there messages over time while having control over them.

The main gist:

  1. New questions (picked by current algorithm) automatically get added to a pool.

  2. Moderators could add questions, perhaps also meta questions that could use some attention.

  3. Moderators can mark questions as approved or delete them.

  4. When scheduled job runs, take an approved question from the pool at random.

    If there is no approved question, the algorithm takes any question.

This way the team still has control over when question gets published as well as its randomness.

It requires like 1 or 2 checks a day so shouldn't be really intensive; the main idea is to check what is the question pool as well as to have some control over it, not to micro manage every single question.


Of course, the above needs to be implemented which costs time and might not work well if it isn't visited twice a day. It's either that or attempting to get the algorithm right, which sometimes is tricky. As Ivo said, starting a new algorithm from the hottest questions of SU might work quite well...

  • 6
    If there's no approved question, do nothing, because we shouldn't promote crap for the sake of promoting – Ivo Flipse Apr 30 '12 at 21:17
  • @IvoFlipse: If you can keep the Twitter from starvation, that's indeed an option to drop... :) – Tamara Wijsman Apr 30 '12 at 21:36
  • Good idea. It'd also be useful to add to the 10k tools allowing 10k+ users to vote for their preferred Qs that represent the site well on Twitter, making it kind of a priority queue. Moderators could have binding "next time, use this Q" votes. – Daniel Beck May 2 '12 at 9:43
  • Corrected ask --> add in step 2. @DanielBeck: If by 10k+ voting you mean step 2 and by "next time" you mean step 3 then I agree. We just don't want the need for moderators to be there in every single time interval (which seems to be every 1 - 3h at first sight), which is what your last vote would literally imply (or I could have misunderstood that and you meant multiple of such votes). – Tamara Wijsman May 2 '12 at 10:03
  • I agree with your general direction, but if the process will be better integrated to the site I want more interactivity. Make it a priority queue of eligible questions where 10k+ users are allowed to vote to prioritize, and give moderators the ability to pin questions to the top. The twitter job will tweet the highest priority questions in intervals, and remove them from the list. – Daniel Beck May 2 '12 at 10:06
  • @DanielBeck: I don't see any benefit in the priority / voting, given that every approved question gets tweeted anyway. You could let the algorithm take events / meta questions first, but I don't see why we would need this for questions. Anyhow, this is for Stack Exchange to decide; whether pure randomization or community-based priority works better. If this gets implemented; because atm, it's just an idea... – Tamara Wijsman May 2 '12 at 10:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .