Timeline for Do we want heavily-downvoted questions to appear on the Meta AU homepage?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 29 at 7:57 | vote | accept | cocomac | ||
| 11 hours ago | |||||
| Sep 26 at 10:59 | history | edited | kos | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 118 characters in body
|
| Sep 26 at 10:58 | comment | added | kos | @muru I'll feature your answer at the top of mine, so that people are aware there's a counter argument to this and so that they'll (hopefully) take the time to review it and potentially vote on your answer, and not stop at the currently most-voted answer, which is always the problem with late answers. | |
| Sep 26 at 10:57 | comment | added | kos | @muru I don't think we'll stop arguing anytime soon :D at the end of the day, much as many things in life, there's no perfect answer. I think we both realize the shortcomings and benefits of both solutions. I personally value the benefits in enabling this more, much as you value the benefits in not enabling this more. What I'm getting at is, it ultimately boils down to a matter of preference. | |
| Sep 26 at 10:53 | comment | added | muru | And for most users, those posts wouldn't be something they'd miss anyway. (Except maybe to pile on the downvotes even more.) | |
| Sep 26 at 10:44 | comment | added | kos | @muru Agreed. And that barrier is exactly what I'm not fond of. I normally visit meta via the top bar. That brings me to the home page, which is what I want (I want to check out the active questions to keep up with what's happening, I rarely use the other tabs). And I'd suppose that's what most users do. Hiding content from the home is an effective way of hiding content, regardless of whether it's done meaning well. It works. Most users won't even know something is missing | |
| Sep 26 at 9:51 | comment | added | muru | Put behind just a barrier, but as I said, still freely visible on "general questions list, tags pages, search results, user profiles, etc. etc." | |
| Sep 26 at 9:35 | comment | added | kos | @muru I think the exact definition of "shadowbanning" changes based on who you ask. But yeah I didn't mean that end-of-the-spectrum acceptation of "shadowbanning". Let me elaborate on what I mean: I mean something like what happens with youtube videos addressing controversial topics. Those videos are usually not deleted, but they'll never be shown on the homepage and they'll sometimes be pretty hard to search for. The second part doesn't apply literally here. But still the content is put behind barriers, in a similar fashion. | |
| Sep 26 at 9:26 | comment | added | muru | That's even more of a reach than calling this censorship. Shadowbanned posts usually can't be seen by anyone except the posters and moderators. These posts are visible in the general questions list, tags pages, search results, user profiles, etc. etc., except just the homepage. | |
| Sep 26 at 9:21 | comment | added | kos | @muru "shadowbanning" perhaps fits better what's happening right now. It's content that is not really hidden, but it's not shown by default and you have to somehow search for it | |
| Sep 26 at 9:00 | comment | added | muru | If a question would have been shown on the home page but was hidden due to this, it's just two clicks (even one, depending on the settings) away: sidebar -> questions. How is that not enough transparency? | |
| Sep 26 at 6:39 | comment | added | kos | @muru But what about the transparency? That's also a point I'm making. I'd wager all it'd take to enable this would be to flip a switch / make a trivial change manually (something like applying a patch in the git sense of things)? Essentially we're being asked if we would like this, so since we're being offered why not saying "yes" if we want the thing? For real "trash" there's still deletion as an option if really required, much like there's the featured option if really required, so either ways it's not that we'd be left uncovered. | |
| Sep 26 at 6:24 | comment | added | muru | So if it doesn't change much, why change at all? This is a change you have to make, so just stick to the defaults instead and use featured for the rare exception instead of having trash stick around front-and-centre for 6 months. Basically: why isn't using featured good enough for those rare cases? | |
| Sep 26 at 6:06 | comment | added | kos | @muru cont - which I think would be important as a matter of principle. The "expense" in this case is just pushing down older posts a bit further. Those in the home page have already sat there enough IMO (6 months). Newer post will still be browsable for about 6 months. It doesn't change much, does it? | |
| Sep 26 at 6:06 | comment | added | kos | @muru Not if they're worth reading (which again, I know there will only be a few) - the point is IMO (and again I understand the counter-argument - I'm not saying there are overwhelming advantages in allowing this from a "posts worth reading" standpoint), at the cost of 1 post more every 100 possibly not worth reading, I (personally) would take the chance and benefit of the, say, 20% of those (completely made up number, I don't know) that are worth reading AND have a transparency policy on the matter - cont | |
| Sep 26 at 5:41 | comment | added | muru | Yes, but those resurfacing will be doing so at the expense of another not-as-badly-received post, so that's a net negative. | |
| Sep 26 at 5:39 | comment | added | kos | @muru That's what I meant - with "works against both arguments" I meant exactly that. Not many posts worth reading will benefit from this (which I also acknowledge later), but also not many posts not worth reading will resurface / be visible; on the home page specifically, after the change, 1 at most judging by the figures | |
| Sep 26 at 4:34 | comment | added | muru | Actually no, the low volume doesn't work in your favour, IMO, because "How many of those 68 questions can we make a good case for keeping around on the homepage for [six months]"? ... especially so when that will be done at the expense of some other post which isn't that poorly received | |
| Sep 26 at 1:14 | history | edited | kos | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1088 characters in body
|
| Sep 25 at 23:47 | comment | added | kos | @muru I understand where the disagreement comes from and I kinda feel the same about useless posts, perhaps you should voice your opinion in an answer, maybe other people will prefer hiding posts, too. | |
| Sep 25 at 23:47 | comment | added | kos | @muru Likewise, for "posthumous corporal punishment of equines" mods (and users) have the option to delete the posts. The search argument doesn't really apply to my point, how am I supposed to search for something I'm not aware of at all? But anyways yes, not hiding anything is going to have its drawbacks, I'm not arguing that. Still for a place like Meta I'd choose full transparency (unlike what I'd choose for main). I mean, it's reasonable to despise seeing rants and other useless stuff on the home page, It's just that personally I'd prefer to see everything over missing discussions. | |
| Sep 25 at 23:22 | comment | added | muru | Liking this to censorship feels like a stretch that gymnasts would be proud of. It's just the main homepage, not meta.askubuntu.com/questions or search results, etc. - basically the difference between seeing posthumous corporal punishment of equines like meta.askubuntu.com/q/20558/158442 everytime I open the homepage and hiding such noise when not really relevant. And of course, for important things that got heavily downvoted, mods and staff always have the option of featuring posts. | |
| Sep 25 at 14:31 | history | edited | kos | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Sep 25 at 11:55 | history | edited | kos | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Made a more compelling example of "important discussion" than "memes" using a real example
|
| Sep 25 at 9:26 | history | edited | kos | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 233 characters in body
|
| Sep 25 at 6:32 | comment | added | andrew.46 Mod | I agree completely. We should avoid censorship on Meta and even the appearance of censorship. | |
| Sep 25 at 4:49 | history | answered | kos | CC BY-SA 4.0 |