Timeline for Please don't be too eager to delete duplicates
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 19:03 | comment | added | Zanna Mod | @ElderGeek agree on all counts. | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 18:33 | comment | added | Elder Geek | I would tend to agree that signposts that say "Crap this way" -> are not something we need. For the most part however, I don't think that's what we have. At any rate, what concerns me most is 41k+ unanswered questions | |
| Mar 17, 2017 at 4:42 | history | edited | ZannaMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 100 characters in body
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 4:36 | history | edited | ZannaMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 100 characters in body
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 14:56 | comment | added | Jacob Vlijm | Keep in mind that our subject does have answers, although not much of quality. | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 14:48 | comment | added | Zanna Mod | @JacobVlijm nobody needs to vote to delete them if they are closed with no answers or downvoted (unless they are dupes) and "leave crap as a deterrent because we are too lazy to review" (not you for sure, but where are all the reviewers? I see the same people in the CV queue every day) is also not an argument I like. However, questions like that usually get closed before they make it to the queues. The harm of having junk on the site is exactly that: bad posts, bad search results, brings down the quality and usefulness of the site, that's all. | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 14:43 | comment | added | Jacob Vlijm | Indeed we should agree to disagree, but I am pretty sure "but (mainly its title) is clear enough to guide at least some people to the cannonical one" is true. If it prevents a few new users from reposting, "questions like that are gone in a flash" is not true. Five votes to close, three to delete is a considerable amount of reviewer's work. What is exactly the harm? | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 14:35 | comment | added | Zanna Mod | @JacobVlijm of course we will never make the site free from crap but I don't think that means we shouldn't bother to try. You say "we regularly see new users ask this type of question" - so having similar questions already is evidently not deterring them. Also, we have no problem getting rid of those new questions when they appear - questions like that are gone in a flash, they even get closed with hammers. Why should we give quarter to the old ones? You argued to keep dupes but you're arguing in favour of keeping all crap if you say let it be a deterrent. | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 14:29 | comment | added | Jacob Vlijm | In a perfect world, we would have 100% quality on the site. However, We regularly see new users ask this type of questions. The deleted post is bad, but (mainly its title) is clear enough to guide at least some people to the "cannonical" one. That means less work for us to repeatedly close or delete similar stuff. Imho you will never ever make the site 100% crap free. The important thing is that we make sure good content is accessible in the best and quickest possible way. Leaving the deleted one as a signpost is not an obstacle in any way. On the contrary I would say. | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 14:12 | history | edited | ZannaMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 27 characters in body
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 14:05 | history | answered | ZannaMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |