5

Initial note:

I'm personally opposed to all forms of ID questions, but this question is not an argument about whether ID questions of any kind should or should not be allowed here.

I'm asking this question because I've just been through many Q&As here on meta related to ID questions and the Q&As I was able to find do not create a clear message in any way about the community support or lack thereof related to ID questions. I started down this path because of this question: What song does Angelique sing near Emilie Dubreuil's deathbed in the French TV series "Les Petits meurtres d'Agatha Christie" S1E3

It seems like this question is the most recent word/decision/announcement about ID questions: We are discontinuing support for identification questions

That question announces that ID questions are considered off topic at that time. Currently, that announcement has a score of +55/-135 and the top voted response is opposed to banning ID questions and has a score of +152/-11.

The question above asserts that (emphasis and link in original):

A recent call for input from the community on this problem has shown a rather unanimous dissatisfaction with the current situation as well as broad agreement that they are not worth the trouble anymore.

That linked "call for input" has a score of +28/-15 and contains this text:

Please note that this post is not intended as an outright vote to keep or ban such questions, but rather to gauge where the community is at on this topic.

The highest scored answer to that discussion that is in favor of a ban has a score of only +11/-3, and there are three answers with higher scores opposed to banning ID questions, the highest scored one has +42/-9. This Q&A and the voting on it do not seem to support banning ID questions at all, and certainly looks nothing like "unanimous" or "broad agreement".

The only thing I could find that was anything like a clear vote on the topic is from two years before the above Q&As and is an unambiguous result to keep ID questions.

Why were ID questions banned without any Q&A that shows a positive vote score for banning or a negative score for keeping them?

Have I merely failed to find the right Q&A?

For some reason a comment of mine keeps disappearing so I’ll put it here:

@NapoleonWilson I’m not sure what “accusations” you’re talking about. I’m not trying to accuse anyone of anything. Someone linked me to an SE meta that literally says we shouldn’t base decisions on voting. You yourself just wrote “policies aren't simply a direct reflection of votes to a specific post”. So message received. Vote totals don’t decide things. Mods decide things. Also not sure what you mean by “as a new user”

27
  • 5
    There's no definitive record of a vote at a point in time on StackExhange [edit: actually this is incorrect - I've never used the feature before today]. As the moderator who was the least emotionally invested in banning the questions, I can defend that at the point in time there was a small but definite vote in favor of the ban. Since the ban went into effect, the downvotes continued from people who disagreed or had their new questions closed.
    – iandotkelly Mod
    Commented Jun 11 at 20:59
  • 2
    The potential problem is that the vote was small - both in favor and against, but a solid majority of users inclined to read and vote were in favor.
    – iandotkelly Mod
    Commented Jun 11 at 21:01
  • 4
    I'm inclined to think that if they ever come back (and I am firmly against that) M&TV should institute the 3 vote close option available to other sites. At least we can shoot down the poor questions (which the majority were) faster that way.
    – Paulie_D
    Commented Jun 11 at 21:29
  • 2
    @iandotkelly So are you saying the question about banning was more like +50/-3 at the time and over the years since has accumulated downvotes by users who are far less active while the main users haven’t changed their votes? I wonder if there’s some way to archive scores on decisions like this so we can refer to them later (like now).
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Jun 11 at 22:04
  • 2
    You can view the vote history of a question by clicking on the clock icon under the score and then on Show Vote Summaries.
    – Paulie_D
    Commented Jun 11 at 22:38
  • 1
    No - nowhere near as high a turnout or as comprehensive a majority as +50/-3
    – iandotkelly Mod
    Commented Jun 11 at 23:16
  • 7
    I've been puzzled by this policy for years. It's perplexing to see such an unpopular decision remain in place. One can't help but wonder, at what point does a policy become so widely opposed that it warrants a re-evaluation?
    – galacticninja
    Commented Jun 12 at 9:46
  • 2
    @ToddWilcox - You are, of course, aware that you can select a tag and "ignore" it.
    – Valorum
    Commented Jun 12 at 15:45
  • 5
    @ToddWilcox - that was what was frustrating about people wanting to ban ID-this-Movie questions. Lots of people very clearly do like them. Quite a few people clearly do not like them. But the people who do not like them were unwilling to use the tools available to hide them, and instead chose to destroy them utterly
    – Valorum
    Commented Jun 12 at 15:51
  • 5
    @ToddWilcox - ultimately, there are a few points in favour; lots of people enjoy the challenge of actually identifying a movie from a description, It genuinely helps the asker (far more so than learning what the laser pistol in Alien is called) and ultimately, it also serves a signpost to other people who are trying to find the same property. I've lost track of the number of "Thank you!!. I was also looking for this!!!!" answers that I've had to delete over the years. Hundreds probably. Maybe thousands.
    – Valorum
    Commented Jun 12 at 15:57
  • 4
    @ToddWilcox Note that downvotes and upvotes are not equal. Downvoting requires 125 rep, upvoting only 15 rep. The fact that the announcement post about the ID ban has substantially more downvotes than upvotes is significant. It indicates that the opposition to the ID ban came from invested community members with significant participation rather than new, low rep users disgruntled that their ID questions were closed.
    – galacticninja
    Commented Jun 12 at 16:14
  • 4
    @ToddWilcox - I have seen this argument used before, and it didn't convince me at the time either. Occasional users are not any less 'members of the community' than people who visit more regularly. We need both in order to be successful as a site.
    – Valorum
    Commented Jun 12 at 19:11
  • 2
    On a related note, about 30% of all closed/deleted questions are ID-this questions. Clearly there's still a strong desire from the userbase to ask them, even in spite of an outright ban. Reinstating them would result in an immediate uptick of people who are likely to get answers to their questions and remain on the site in future.
    – Valorum
    Commented Jun 15 at 12:18
  • 2
    I was there when the voting was ongoing. AFAIR, it went as Paulie_D said: those who were familiar with meta noticed the post and voted, and those semi-regulars/one-time visitors didn't know/care about the meta post... until the voting period was closed, the close reason was created and linked to the meta announcement, and the cleanup (thus notification of questions being closed to the OP and the first time knowing the policy change, and finally, the flurry of downvotes). I'd say: the problem is there's no good way to notify all interested users about ongoing policy discussions on the meta.
    – Andrew T.
    Commented Jun 17 at 5:00
  • 3
    @Valorum I haven’t had time to respond more but I think the actual answer to my question is that the decision isn’t based on votes. It’s based on “discussion”. In other words, the mods can do what they want regardless of vote totals. And they can interpret “discussions”. The reason why ID questions are banned is the mods wanted to ban them, so they did. Pretty much what you have been saying if I understand right. I was actually told that if I want to see how bad ID questions are, that I should check out SciFi.SE. :-D Obviously they hadn’t looked at my profile.
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Jun 17 at 11:51

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
5

What was the vote on the "Check-In" Question?

As you point out it wasn't intended to be exclusively a voting decision. However I would suggest, particularly given its tone about the problems of the questions and the personal opinion of @NapoleonWilson, that an upvote is a likely supportive position.

The question was created on November 27, 2017 and the decision to ban Identification announced January 3 2018. So a little over a month was given for people to express an opinion.

At that time the 'check-in' question had a vote tally of

+23 / -1

What about the Answers at the time?

Any borderline or more obviously pro-ID answers were created:

  • January 4
  • January 4
  • January 4
  • January 22
  • March 19

I'm a little surprised actually at how one sided the discussion was. There were literally no answers that were pro-ID questions prior to the decision.

"Have I failed to find the right Q&A?"

No, not at all. It's just that the decision was pretty unanimous at the time, and has subsequently attracted dissenting voices and downvotes. Looking at the Q&A today you don't get a clear idea of the state of discussion at the time.

16
  • 3
    Honestly I was the least bothered by ID questions of the moderators at the time, however I don't see how you could take the response to this question at the time as anything other than an endorsement of banning ID.
    – iandotkelly Mod
    Commented Jun 11 at 23:49
  • 8
    Because the question asked was phrased deceptively and explicitly stated that it was not going to be a binding vote on whether to ban them or not.
    – Valorum
    Commented Jun 12 at 6:02
  • 2
    You can also check the voting history using this SEDE script. According to that script the vote was +23/-1 at the 3rd of January. So your point still stands :)
    – Joachim
    Commented Jun 12 at 8:33
  • 3
    I have a couple of issues with using the "check-in" post's score as the basis for the policy decision. I have elaborated on my answer here.
    – galacticninja
    Commented Jun 12 at 17:06
  • 6
    Oh come on @Valorum ..... there were literally no posts voicing dissent for over a month. Its injecting unnecessary drama to imply this was somehow deceptive.
    – iandotkelly Mod
    Commented Jun 12 at 20:09
  • 7
    @iandotkelly - Over Christmas, on a non-featured post, one that quite literally said it was just a "check-in"? The only thing missing was to lock it in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.. As soon as people actually saw it, the vote shifted dramatically but, alas, the damage was already done because it allowed the creation of this false consensus narrative.
    – Valorum
    Commented Jun 12 at 20:54
  • 6
    @iandotkelly As much as I hate ID questions, I agree completely with Valorum’s issues with how this was… “decided”.
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Jun 12 at 22:54
  • 4
    Yes clearly @Valorum it was over Christmas but to state a period of 37 days (while it was featured) was deliberate behavior to avoid discussion is nonsense. Also it took some time into the last quarter of 2018 before the answer overtook NapoleonWilsons. Exaggerating the story here does no credit to your argument. I suggest you concentrate on the more positive aspect which is "what do you want to achieve here", rather than concentrating on a narrative ... true or not ... that the moderators deliberately tired to hijack the issue under the nose of a solid community in support of ID questions.
    – iandotkelly Mod
    Commented Jun 13 at 4:36
  • 1
    As someone who (on balance) was happy to support the decision, I wan't a flag waving cheerleader for this. In my opinion there was a solid community support for the ban at the time.
    – iandotkelly Mod
    Commented Jun 13 at 4:40
  • 3
    So .... without wanting to appear confrontational. What do people want to do here? Options include (1) making it clear to moderators that an equivalent decision should be somehow handled better, and constructively suggest how that could be done (2) be seriously unhappy with the moderation of the site and therefore seek SE to conduct elections and or (3) directly seek to change the policy.
    – iandotkelly Mod
    Commented Jun 13 at 4:42
  • 1
    I would happily support people who have concerns and want to do any or all of these things, but I genuinely believe suggestion of 'creating a false narrative' to be disingenuous and unhelpful 6 years after the events. We should concentrate on how we want to build the site today.
    – iandotkelly Mod
    Commented Jun 13 at 4:46
  • 1
    For the record I would happily step down to create a position if SE felt that we have too many moderators. I want to discuss movies and the last thing I want to do is indulge in SE site politics.
    – iandotkelly Mod
    Commented Jun 13 at 4:49
  • 1
    @iandotkelly I'm starting to think that it makes sense to just have the policies reflect the scores on meta posts related to those policies. Seems like maybe you're suggesting a new meta post to ask the community if ID questions should still be banned, but the community seems clear enough to me: They don't want ID questions banned. We know that from the votes on the existing meta questions. Was 37 days enough to get a consensus? It was reasonable at the time to think so, but in hindsight it seems like it was not enough time. Seems like the ban was an honest mistake that could be fixed.
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Jun 13 at 5:56
  • 2
    I've changed my vote on this answer to a downvote because it's only made me more confused. I still don't understand why ID questions are banned when there is clear and overwhelming opposition to the ban. Saying "people only opposed the ban after it was implemented" argues against keeping the ban, not for it. Why would anyone complain about a ban that doesn't exist? Why would people randomly go to meta, search for a "check in" about ID questions, and then voice an opinion when the "check in" clearly says that any opinions voiced won't lead to a decision.
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Jun 15 at 6:23
  • 3
    I might also want to point out that there was an overwhelming vote in favour of keeping them less than a year earlier.
    – Valorum
    Commented Jun 15 at 11:31
5

It seems there's been a shift in the community's stance on ID questions shortly after the "check in" / call for input post was made.

Let's take a closer look at the timeline and the voting patterns. ne Back in 2017, there was a "check in" / call for input meta post regarding ID questions, which was a reversal of the previous consensus just a year earlier, in 2016, allowing ID questions.

While the post itself didn't intend to be an outright vote, there was an answer by Napoleon Wilson that favored banning ID questions (currently the top-voted answer in favor of the ban). Interestingly, this answer had a higher initial score compared to Erik's answer (currently the top-voted answer in opposition to the ban).

However, as time passed, Erik's stance gained significant traction, eventually surpassing Napoleon Wilson's answer in score. This shift suggests that the community's initial leaning towards banning ID questions changed within a year of the post. (And there was no clear consensus several months before Erik's answer got a wide lead.)

Source: This SEDE query comparing the two answers. I based it on this SEDE query for an Arqade Meta post. (Let me know if I messed something up.)

Graph comparing the two answers' scores over time:

SEDE query showing Erik's answer overtaking Napoleon Wilson's answer

Notice how the difference in score between the two answers has become wider over time and that there was a point when there was no clear community consensus.

Now, fast forward to the announcement of the ID question ban in 2018, which received a substantial negative score (-81). This score, coupled with the overwhelming number of downvotes (136), indicates a widespread dissatisfaction with the policy among the engaged community members.

It's worth noting that the high number of downvotes on the announcement post isn't just from disgruntled users who had their questions closed. Downvoting requires a significant amount of reputation (125 rep, compared to 15 rep for upvoting), suggesting that the opposition came from invested community members with significant participation, rather than disgruntled low rep users.

Considering the voting patterns and the current negative score on the ban announcement, it appears that the community's stance has shifted back towards allowing ID questions, contradicting the initial rationale for the ban based on the 2017 "check-in" / call for input.

So, to answer your question, "Where is the successful vote to ban them?"—while the 2017 call for input might have been cited as justification, the community's current position, as reflected by the voting patterns, favors retaining ID questions on the site.

As for your updated question, "Why are ID questions banned when there are only 55 votes in favor of it and 135 votes against it?"—only the moderators can explain why the ban remains in place despite the clear lack of community support, since they're the ones elected by the community to implement the policy based on community consensus.

The onus is on those in favor of the ban to provide evidence of the clear, current community consensus for their position. As far as I can see, there is currently no meta post showing that a clear majority of the community supports banning ID questions.

Personally, I cannot, in good conscience, continue to close questions that lack community support. If I do so, Movies & TV SE would be the only Stack Exchange site where I would be acting against the community's stance. I can't think of any close reason on an SE site I'm active on that has no current community support or consensus backing it up.

It would be inappropriate and unjustifiable to continue closing these questions. I would still vote to close those that lack sufficient details or clarity to be answerable, of course.

Regarding the specific question you mentioned, "What song does Angelique sing near Emilie Dubreuil's deathbed in the French TV series "Les Petits meurtres d'Agatha Christie" S1E3," while questions asking to identify movies and TV shows (and episodes) are off-topic, there is neither a site policy nor a community consensus to ban all questions that involve identifying something about a movie (link leads to the relevant meta post).

This is a reply to iandotkelly's answer and moderator comments on the question post, where they mentioned the score of the "check-in" meta post as the basis for the decision to ban ID questions.

I have a couple of issues with using the "check-in" post's score as the basis for the policy decision:

  1. Firstly, and most importantly, the post itself clarifies that "this post is not intended as an outright vote to keep or ban such questions." So, the post was not meant to be the deciding factor, and I'm not sure why the post's score is being cited as the reason for the policy change. For a policy change, it should be clear on the meta post itself that it's meant to be the basis for a decision, so the community could vote and post answers accordingly. This leads us to...

  2. There's an inherent bias in the voting system towards upvotes—you need 125 rep to downvote but only 15 rep to upvote. This means upvotes carry more weight, potentially skewing the perceived support for the ban. Instead of relying on the post's score, it might be better to look at the upvotes on its answers. That way, users with less than 125 rep can have their votes counted. And if we do that, it appears that most users are against the ban.

15
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat.
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Jun 14 at 0:15
  • 2
    I've unaccepted this answer because accepting it made it seem like I'm satisfied, but I'm not. Basically, there's no reasonable support for the assertion that the community does not want ID questions. This answer doesn't explain why ID questions remain banned.
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Jun 15 at 6:22
  • 4
    @ToddWilcox I believe only the moderators can explain why ID questions remain banned despite the lack of community support for the ban.
    – galacticninja
    Commented Jun 15 at 6:26
  • 4
    Seriously there is no data that supports EITHER ongoing support of the ban or ongoing support for a reversal. To suggest a slow trickle of votes over 6 years shows support for a reversal is extremely weak. FOR THE RECORD I am not saying that there is not support for a reversal, but to argue that there is clear "lack of community support for the ban" is stretching a point. Even in this discussion there has been only 5 people - 2 of whom have stated that they like the ban, 2 appear to want a reversal, and myself who is honestly fairly neutral.
    – iandotkelly Mod
    Commented Jun 15 at 17:19
  • 4
    I am also quite frustrated at the suggestion that I am 'stubbornly refusing to explain'. There was a post, the post WAS advertised on the main site, the post was up for over a month, the post gathered only answers supporting a ban. That is the only answer I can give you. The fact that you don't like the answer isn't my stubborness.
    – iandotkelly Mod
    Commented Jun 15 at 17:24
  • 3
    Its quite insulting to suggest that I consider "all comments and votes against the ban to be invalid". I've not insulted your integrity, I respectfully ask that you do the same for me. If there had been any amount of evidence for dissent during the process I would have objected to a ban in the moderation team.
    – iandotkelly Mod
    Commented Jun 15 at 17:27
  • 3
    Honestly I don't care enough about ID questions to want to ignore dissenting voices, I just want to engage in Q&A about movies and answering ID questions is kind of fun - but at the time I do feel the mood of the site was swinging against them at that time. They dominated the site in terms of numbers of question and a lot of regular users were unhappy with that.
    – iandotkelly Mod
    Commented Jun 15 at 17:36
  • 2
    @iandotkelly "There was a post, the post WAS advertised on the main site, the post was up for over a month, the post gathered only answers supporting a ban." That post was not a vote on whether to ban ID questions or not, so why was it used to justify a ban on ID questions? Maybe it's not stubbornness, maybe it's just not understanding what I don't understand. What makes the question you're referring to a deciding point for whether to ban ID questions? And what does the post being up for a month and the post being advertised on the main site have to do with anything?
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Jun 16 at 4:34
  • 3
    @iandotkelly Also you shouldn't take any of my frustration personally. I'm not expecting you and only you to explain this. I'm assuming multiple people were part of the process and decision to ban ID questions. I have no idea whether you were even one of those people. I'm saying that no one has explained this. It's not about you, it's about everyone.
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Jun 16 at 4:42
  • 1
    What makes the question you're referring to a deciding point? Answer: It was a question that asked for opinion for what to do, the only answers were to ban them. You don't have to like that answer, but that is the answer.
    – iandotkelly Mod
    Commented Jun 17 at 6:15
  • what does the post being up for a month and the post being advertised on the main site have to do with anything. Answer: One of the points repeatedly made is that the meta post was somehow hidden, kept secret from the main site, and only die hard users would see it.
    – iandotkelly Mod
    Commented Jun 17 at 6:17
  • 1
    Please please please, can we stop going over whether or not the original decision was correct or not. And can we stop trying to say the decision is automatically overturned because of some trickle of votes over six years. If this is bothering people so much, decide how you think the policy should be overturned how you would genuinely and fairly poll for opinion, and do it.
    – iandotkelly Mod
    Commented Jun 17 at 6:19
  • 1
    As to your updated answer, I'll repeat my point from the above comment, just in case. You suddenly deciding that a policy you disagree with has become invalid doesn't actually make it so and doing deliberately wrong reviews is not a proper venue to go about changing that policy. I can't just decide stealing is okay because we'd all have lot more fun this way. But of course you don't have to close-vote any question, no matter the reason. User moderation is entirely voluntary.
    – Napoleon Wilson Mod
    Commented Jun 17 at 8:10
  • 2
    @iandotkelly My only concern here is I still don’t understand how this decision was made. I mean, I understand now, but neither this answer nor any of the comments in it have been clear. Some people seem to be reading a lot into my honest confusion that I’m not trying to say. I don’t care how the decision was made, I just want a clear explanation of the thinking. Based on an SE Meta Q&A and some other comments, I’m pretty sure the actual answer is “let people discuss and vote so they feel heard and then mods decide based on what’s best”. There’s nothing wrong with that.
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Jun 17 at 12:48
  • 1
    You might also add that one thing I've read several times in defense of the legitimacy of the "check-in" is that it was "featured on the main site", but the featuring of meta posts does nothing at all for mobile users, and even with the full desktop experience, it's just a little thing in the upper right that I usually ignore completely. I doubt I'm the only active user who doesn't check what meta posts might be featured ever.
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Jul 8 at 2:41
2

Because moderation decisions are not actually meant to be based on community consensus, the votes are irrelevant

Personally, I find the answer saying there was a consensus at one time was more confusing to me. It adds many more questions, such as how would mods determine how long after the question and answers were posted to see where the consensus is?

I think Napoleon Wilson provided the answer I'm looking for, just indirectly. They put a link in a chat with me to a Meta.SE answer about how decisions should be made on SE meta sites. Here is a quote (emphasis mine):

Meta sites are a perversion of the Stack Exchange model, discussion sites implemented using a Q&A engine. This works surprisingly well, if you keep the limitations of both in mind at all times:

  • Voting isn't limited - you can post an opinion and down-vote a conflicting option. Or upvote it. Or find two opposing view-points and vote the same way on both. Or leave disemboweling comments without voting at all.
  • Sometimes good ideas are expressed very, very poorly and are down-ranked. Sometimes bad ideas are expressed very well, and garner some popularity for that.
  • Sometimes folks propose strategies that would break the entire site if followed... And they end up ranked highly because a lot of folks don't particularly like the site they're on, and wish it was the sort of site that gave away more free ice cream and less disemboweling criticism.
  • Sometimes folks post impassioned pleas for help and are down-ranked because you're all sadists. Sometimes folks just post rants, and are up-ranked because you're all masochists.
  • Sometimes folks post well-reasoned, insightful analysis followed by a brilliant solution... And are ignored completely because tl;dr man, ain't nobody got time for that.

In other words, you need to interpret the outcome of each discussion or proposal individually. There's no hard number or ratio that will guarantee that you're doing the right thing; let folks discuss, when they've had a chance, make a decision and implement it.

Also I was told this at one point by a mod (emphasis mine):

I just don't think votes alone show an actual picture of what's best for the site. As I explained to you. The thing why polls are terrible.

Mods make the decision, not the community

After the discussion, the mods make and implement the decision. They may very well make the decision based on voting, but there's nothing requiring them to do so.

Another way to think about this is that SE sites are representative republics, not direct democracies. If we don't like the decisions the mods make, we should elect different mods.

2
  • 4
    "If we don't like the decisions the mods make, we should elect different mods." - that argument doesn't really work when 3/4 of the mod team haven't been up for election since 2015. As someone who joined the site in Nov 2015, for example, I've never had a chance in these 9 years to cast a vote on whether or not I support Napoleon, Ankit, or Ian as mods. If they were making decisions so unpopular that the community wanted to "elect different mods", as you put it, who'd know?
    – Rand al'Thor
    Commented Jun 22 at 7:36
  • 1
    @Randal'Thor Oh that’s not my argument. That’s my interpretation of what I was told. None of this came from me. I posted it because I was told it and it’s the answer that I believe is most true.
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Jun 22 at 11:44

You must log in to answer this question.

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