Timeline for We are discontinuing support for identification questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
32 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16 at 9:32 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson Mod | In any case though: this conversation has been moved to chat. (Well not really, since I can't seem to find a way to actually move the new comments to chat, but we could at least continue this there if you'd want to continue.) | |
| Jun 16 at 9:23 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson Mod | ...Of course if it's really just personal preference, then okay, I guess you can't explain why they should be banned wholesale. But that's not what actually happened and saying it was doesn't do justice to the discussion back then. | |
| Jun 16 at 9:21 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson Mod | Also, you say it's "just your opinion". Well, if you look into the reasons for that opinion, maybe you find it's not just personal preference rather than genuine problems for the site at large that you find they are causing. And if you voice that and explain why they are bad not just for you but for the site, you might find that you suddenly have an actual productive meta discussion. Would you be surprised if I told you that's exactly what happened around 6.5 years ago?... | |
| Jun 16 at 9:16 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson Mod | ...Again, if the overall mood of the community switched on this topic, we gotta have a serious talk about this. Yet all I'm constantly seeing is people beating around the bush with posts about how the moderators were so evil to ban them at a time where there was "clear non-support". And if we have that discussion, then we need to talk about why all those reasons they were banned for have become obsolete. | |
| Jun 16 at 9:16 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson Mod | @ToddWilcox Yes, Todd, there are definitely some users disastisfied with the ban and who would like ID questions to to come back. Noone denies that. But on the one hand you paint these dissenting voices as "clear support" and on the other hand you deny the community that was against them when they were banned their voice for unsupporting them.... | |
| Jun 16 at 9:08 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson Mod | @ToddWilcox "doesn’t seem to be any clear process for how things are decided here. I thought it was votes" - We don't really decide things purely based on voting polls on SE. If we did that, ChatGPT could be our moderator. That's where informed discussion comes into play. There's some very good classic questions on main meta about why polls are terrible for "consensus" that I've linked to about a million times by now (probably also on this thread). | |
| Jun 15 at 22:49 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | @NapoleonWilson “If the community genuinely wants these questions, they need to actually start discussing that issue and explain why they want them” I… what? I mean, you haven’t read any of the plethora of posts and comments in favor of ID questions? I’m completely baffled by this comment of yours asking for someone to defend ID questions. There’s so much clear support for them it makes me sad. This is exactly what really bothers me: is it willful ignorance or what? How can you ask for what is so obviously already there? | |
| Jun 15 at 22:46 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | @NapoleonWilson I don’t deem them worthwhile. I hate ID questions. But I can’t show to any other users of the site that it’s anything other than the personal opinion of a minority of users that they are bad. Besides that, my biggest issue is that there doesn’t seem to be any clear process for how things are decided here. I thought it was votes but the votes don’t match the policy. Now you’re saying it’s “discussion” without any clarity on whatever that means. It really does feel like an arbitrary decision made by a few mods with no clear justification. | |
| Jun 15 at 19:51 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson Mod | ...Also, we didn't arrive at 37 days as a magic number. Merely years of problems with these questions culminated in a discussion that made a consensus apparent after 37 days. What magic amount would you propose? And lastly, if you can't bring yourself to explain what makes these questions worthwhile in contrast to the problems they cause just because noone said "vote now or they'll take 'em away from you!", then I have to wonder if you actually do deem them worthwhile. | |
| Jun 15 at 19:51 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson Mod | @ToddWilcox Well, Todd, there hasn't really been that much discussion about if we want ID questions or not and why we do so. All I'm seeing is complaints about the process of how the ban was installed and why this announcement has so terribly low votes (which ian also adresses in his answer to your question). If the community genuinely wants these questions, they need to actually start discussing that issue and explain why they want them and how they improve the site, rather than merely complaining that we didn't have an easy yes/no-poll instead of an informed dicsussion... | |
| Jun 15 at 6:20 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | @NapoleonWilson "Then I have to ask you yet again how we are ever to arive at a reasonable decision if we can't discuss it at the place where such things are supposed to be discussed and drawing a conclusion from that discussion." I have to ask you why the votes and discussion that happened after the ban are somehow less important than the votes and discussion that happened before the ban? Also, how did we arrive at 37 days as the magic amount of time to let a "discussion" happen? Also, why should people bothered to voice their opinion in a discussion that was described as non-binding? | |
| Jan 17, 2018 at 19:22 | comment | added | iandotkelly Mod |
@JohnnyBones ... what exactly do you mean by "rely on this tag" ... are you talking about reputation, or are you talking about using it to ask questions? If you're talking about reputation, I believe the impact of deleting questions will be very small indeed. Your reputation is only 0.3% based on identify-this-movie and a lot of that will be retained in any case.
|
|
| Jan 17, 2018 at 2:15 | comment | added | Walt | No offense, Johnny, but I think you're going about this the wrong way. I'm pretty sure no one stands to lose more than a couple hundred points other than me, and I couldn't care less about my rep. (That said, I am against banning ID, and would've explained why if I felt it mattered at all.) | |
| S Jan 15, 2018 at 17:15 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S Jan 15, 2018 at 17:15 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson Mod | Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. | |
| Jan 14, 2018 at 9:08 | comment | added | A J Mod | ... If we hadn't taken the step to start banning them, this site that focuses upon most aspects of movies and TV shows would only have been remained as ID-this-movie-TV-show site. Here are words of a community manager, which you should really take a look at. | |
| Jan 14, 2018 at 9:06 | comment | added | A J Mod | @Mr.Kennedy Please don't suggest the ideas that have been suggested before and never worked. This problem has been around since years ago when site was in public beta and you just have been here for less than a year. The problems they cause have been discussed before and the suggestions to cope with these have been made before, but those problems still are as they were. Please don't repeat those suggestions... | |
| Jan 14, 2018 at 6:40 | comment | added | MmmHmm | @Memor-X your metaphor doesn't make ID questions the problem. I for one enjoy answering them. I enjoy seeing them answered. If they are really poorly written, I'm happy to edit them but that is an aesthetic concern and basing policy on aesthetics as compared to pragmatics (i.e. the ID questions are useful to the community) is a poor policy choice. | |
| Jan 14, 2018 at 3:54 | comment | added | Memor-X | "Click the Edit button and you'll see a box for Ignore tags. Add identify-this-movie to your Ignore Tags box. Problem solved." actually it doesn't. it's like saying to side the exposed live wiring of a building with a sheet. remember that some people who are active on the site edit id requests to improve their quality, almost every repose supporting id requests after the fact come from people who want to ask their own or get rep from answering them, are these people prepared to edit all these questions as they appear while those who don't like editing but do it for the site them hide them? | |
| Jan 13, 2018 at 20:03 | history | edited | Johnny Bones | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 227 characters in body
|
| Jan 13, 2018 at 19:59 | comment | added | Johnny Bones | My only point was that two of the biggest rep users here rely on this tag. That can't be disputed. Pulling this tag would be a huge disservice to those who have put plenty of time and energy reflected by reputation. You guys are mods. You make the laws. I don't like this one. You know that users can add filters to ignore tags, right? If users don't like the tag, they add it to their "Ignore" list. No sweat. I did that for GoT questions, because I don't watch the show and they were clogging my feed. | |
| Jan 13, 2018 at 17:46 | comment | added | A J Mod | What I wonder now is that people who should come out and say their opinions when the discussion was going on are now raising their opinions. Ignorance is not always bliss. And ignoring the tag is not a solution to the long-term problems they cause. This suggestion is like ignoring the fire in the house next to you and not thinking the damage it might cause to your house. | |
| Jan 13, 2018 at 17:46 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson Mod | It has been explained how this problem goes beyond a select few people not liking some questions and how this affects the entire site and its community. It's just not as "simple" as that. You don't have to agree with the arguments presented (provided you read them at least). But stop saying that is all this is about, since that's just wrong and actually disingenuous. And stop playing down the legitimate venues this has been discussed on time and time again just because you didn't contribute, that's belittling the significant part of the community that did. | |
| Jan 13, 2018 at 17:20 | comment | added | MmmHmm | It's not my responsibility to figure out how to do your job as moderator. There are lots of ways to engage with a community and you are relying on one which is merely symbolic such that you can say, "if you don't like what was changed it is your fault for not seeing the tiny little sign I posted about it". Again, the solution to the problem of a small group of people being annoyed by ID ?s is for them to ignore what they dislike, not to remove the function of the site altogether. Simple. | |
| Jan 13, 2018 at 16:37 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson Mod | Then what do you propose, a main site question? We have to discuss it somehow and meta is that venue. It is how SE gets used. It was expected that there might sure be some people dissatisfied with the outcome or maybe even simply not noticing the discussion. But that always happens to some degree. It was also expected that the loudest complaints would arrive once something would actually be done about the problem rather than sitting around. But that's natural, too. It's much easier to ignore complaints about the status quo than complaints about some major progress. | |
| Jan 13, 2018 at 16:36 | comment | added | MmmHmm | You should have expected that the majority of users wouldn't find out about the change of policy until after the option was gone. Again, if you really think users are hanging on your every post in Meta, then you are simply out of touch with how this site (and the internet in general) gets used. | |
| Jan 13, 2018 at 16:34 | comment | added | MmmHmm | @NapoleonWilson No one is saying it can't be discussed. But if that is your take on this discussion, the problem is your lack of engagement with the community. Please note the difference between engaging a community and pushing your agenda | |
| Jan 13, 2018 at 11:49 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson Mod | Then I have to ask you yet again how we are ever to arive at a reasonable decision if we can't discuss it at the place where such things are supposed to be discussed and drawing a conclusion from that discussion. | |
| Jan 13, 2018 at 5:40 | comment | added | MmmHmm | @NapoleonWilson you keep saying "the community" but Johnny Bones' point is that what you consider "the community having spoken" amounts to such a low percentage of registered and even regular users that it raises the question of how the policy decisions get made and specifically, by whom. Yes, lots of people don't like the ID questions. Thing is, those people can just ignore them. Banning them altogether is a bad policy decision. | |
| Jan 13, 2018 at 0:57 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson Mod | Yes, we decided to give them another chance...and they failed that chance, the situation only got worse. So this time the community asked for a more open discussion, asking people about their opinion on the matter and why these questions are worth the damage they have on the site. But... noone could actually tell us why, not a single person and not a single reason. So the community realized they couldn't just continue sitting around and looking at the misery. | |
| Jan 13, 2018 at 0:45 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson Mod | Have you taken a look at the question that actually discussed these questions and their merits? | |
| Jan 12, 2018 at 21:48 | history | answered | Johnny Bones | CC BY-SA 3.0 |