Timeline for Check in on Identification questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 22, 2023 at 8:19 | comment | added | BCdotWEB | @Brōtsyorfuzthrāx They're not popular. There were a lot of them, and there was a ton of complaining about them on meta. There's a reason ID questions eventually get banned on SE sites, because they're a) not good questions, b) require tons of work to get them into shape (up to adding the necessary "ID" tag!) and c) don't help engagement. | |
| May 12, 2021 at 20:45 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | Erik, I came here to voice my disagreement about the policy. You did it better than I could, so I only needed to upvote. Especially being reminded or being made aware of good works is something I wouldn't even have said but which is clearly true. People ask ID questions because something made an impression and continues to resonate with them. Typically, that is above average stuff, so I really like to hear about it. | |
| Jun 4, 2020 at 15:14 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jan 29, 2018 at 16:50 | comment | added | Erik | @steelersquirrel I agree with a lot of what you said above. The only catch is I don't have the ability to vote to reopen. Currently only 126 users have that ability. So the group driving close/reopen stats is relatively small. Even 30 active users could control the narrative effectively since not all the 126 will be active, or care about ID questions. All that being said I'm resigned that ID questions are gone. I'll still contribute. Ironically I found out about the ban via SciFi.SE meta on the day I wanted to post an ID question here. | |
| Jan 29, 2018 at 1:22 | comment | added | steelersquirrel | Or to start a meta discussion about the ridiculous criteria. The entire community is welcome to start any discussion they would like, but when all of the pro ID arguments come in after the fact, then it doesn't really solve anything. I have learned to enjoy the site and appreciate the non ID questions and you have had great non-ID contributions here, so I hope that you continue to be a part of the community :) | |
| Jan 29, 2018 at 1:16 | comment | added | steelersquirrel | I understand what you're saying and I defended ID for a long time because they brought me to this site and I never saw any problem with them when I was more of a casual user here. But, when I started becoming more involved with the site and started to understand the SE system better, I saw that they were not as great as I thought they were. I agree with you that we were way too hard on ID and the criteria were ridiculous to have an on topic ID question, but those people are here every day close voting them. Other members of the community were more than welcome to vote to reopen | |
| Jan 28, 2018 at 17:04 | comment | added | Erik | @steelersquirrel I agree that majority rules and people are free to post their opinions. As far as the political stuff if you encourage an action and then use the encouraged outcome as evidence against that thing then you are setting that thing up for failure. That’s what happened here. ID questions were encouraged to fail in a manner that has the veneer of being helpful. No one has presented any facts to contradict this assertion. People just say that ID questions are awful and we made rules to easily close them and the continued high close rate proves they’re awful. | |
| Jan 26, 2018 at 21:03 | comment | added | steelersquirrel | In defense of @BCdotWEB, when you post on meta, you are are making the choice to receive feedback on your post, especially from those who don't agree with it. I don't really see anyone trying to change your mind, I see users who are trying to educate you with facts. It seems that in all of these ID discussions, nobody really wants to hear the FACTS. There's no political conspiracy happening here, the community had ample time to discuss this. The so called cadre of users who are apparently playing some political game for repression is just silly. Majority rules. It's that simple. | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 16:32 | comment | added | Erik | @BCdotWEB like I said before I'm not going to argue the merits of the questions. When your attitude is clearly all ID questions are bad and should be gone regardless of quality as evidence by comments like "No, that simply means the rest aren't bad enough to get closed." It is obvious you aren't willing to listen to anything anyone says unless it derides ID questions. You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 6:47 | comment | added | BCdotWEB | "even if 2 out of 5 were closed that still leaves the bulk as good questions" No, that simply means the rest aren't bad enough to get closed. Still doesn't mean they're good. "Of course closure rates are going to be high when you've aggressively closed them under increasingly strict guidelines." Those guidelines were put in place to IMPROVE ID questions. You lot pretend this just happened. No, this is a process that has been going on since this site's beta phase and no matter what was done, ID questions didn't improve without significant effort. | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 23:18 | comment | added | Erik | @DForck42 :) 11% of all questions on SO is mountains more questions than we see on Movies.SE. So you're right, it isn't the same scale it is bigger. Like I said to BCdotWEB I'm not going to debate the merit of the questions. You're part of a group of people who encouraged aggressive closure of these questions and use closure stats to validate your desire to ban them. Of course closure rates are going to be high when you've aggressively closed them under increasingly strict guidelines. ID questions were actively targeted and hunted inflating closures. There is no denying that. | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 23:03 | comment | added | DForck42 | the JS tag makes up about 11% of all questions asked on SO with 20% of those getting closed. This is, in general, not to the same scale as the quality and quantity of ID questions on movies. reference: data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/edit/789544#graph | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 22:05 | comment | added | Erik | @DForck42 even if 2 out of 5 were closed that still leaves the bulk as good questions. Also should SO stop taking JavaScript questions if they tend to be poor quality and the answer is always use more jQuery? Honestly you can dress it up however you like but those people that don't like these questions decided that people who do like these questions weren't worthy. You made a value judgment on a class, not on individual merits. We should close bad questions but not every ID question is bad. | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 21:57 | comment | added | Erik | @BCdotWEB well you've gotten your wish then. Our experiences with them are entirely different. I'm not going to argue their merit with you because I doubt either one of us will change the other's mind. I am disappointed they're gone though. | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 21:57 | comment | added | DForck42 | questions are put on hold because they have issues. questions become closed because they couldn't be fixed or the person that posted it didn't care enough to fix it. that IS an indicator of quality, especially when 2 for every 5 questions were closed because they WEREN'T quality enough ID to keep | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 21:42 | comment | added | BCdotWEB | Here's how bad ID questions were: I've had to edit in the "identify-this" tag on such a question quite often. I've had them completely filtered out and yet they still popped up on my homepage, sometimes multiple times a week. People soured on them because they were so awful, because they required disproportionate care, and because they tended to completely overtake the homepage. | |
| Jan 22, 2018 at 19:40 | history | answered | Erik | CC BY-SA 3.0 |