2

As you may already know, we currently have a meta discussion post asking, "What does the community want to do with identification questions?"

Right now, when we close ID questions, a notice is added to the question directing users to the meta post "We are discontinuing support for identification questions". Given our ongoing discussion, I think it'd be great to update the note on that meta post to encourage more community input.

The current note reads:

NOTE: Got linked here but don't really care about all the meta discussion? Just want quick help with identifying your movie? Take a look at this question and its answers.

I propose we change it to also mention the discussion post "What does the community want to do with identification questions?".

What do you think? This change would:

  1. Inform users about the ongoing discussion
  2. Encourage community participation

I believe this small update could make a big difference in getting more voices heard on this important topic. Let me know your thoughts!

0

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4

The note is important if it is read. And if the user goes to that meta page. Before that, he discovers his question closed, and a close-reason note.

As of today (2024-06-21), when an "identification question" is closed, the following notification is showed to the user and the ones with the relevant privileges.

notification showed for closed identification question

Identification questions are off-topic, because they tend to attract low-quality and low-effort posts. The community has decided to no longer support these questions. Please refer to this meta post for additional details. You may also check this list of external identification resources.

To me, it's not the discussion that it points to that's important, it's the first notification that is. And the close-reason note, as the first information given to the user, is the main information, and should be fixed first.

It could be too 'straight to the point', and hurt a user who'll never come back. Like a 'be nice policy' breach. Because it kind of 'attacks' the poster ("low-quality and low-effort post") rather than explaining the choice of the community. A little sugar-coating when rejecting something isn't all that bad after all :)

To reflect the actual situation, it would probably be possible to modify the notification showed once the post is closed, in order to make it 'less harsh, more welcoming'.

NOTE: The Movies & TV SE community is currently not accepting identification questions. If you'd like to share your thoughts/opinion on the matter, you're welcome to join the discussion: what does the community want to do with identification questions?

Just looking for a quick answer about that particular show/movie you're trying to identify? Many available resources are listed here.

  1. The Movies & TV SE community is currently not accepting identification questions.: we decided to forbid these questions, it has nothing to do with you.
  2. If you'd like to share your thoughts/opinion on the matter, you're welcome to join the discussion: once again, welcoming the user.
  3. Just looking for a quick answer about that particular show/movie you're trying to identify? Many available ressources are listed here: just because we don't do ID questions here, we're still willing to help.

That, in my opinion, would be an important step forward. Maybe next would be a meta post gathering the opinions and decision; we would link to that post in the closed-question notification. We shouldn't give to new users a view of the actual mess we're making right now (we're good, uh?! ^^), rather the result of it. Like a politician once said: "2 things you must not give the recipe of are laws and sausages". Same would apply here :)

19
  • 1
    Great ideas! Yeah, I'm also not sure why the close notice has a negative tone regarding ID questions—labeling them as ‘low quality’ and ‘low effort'—it's a bit off-putting and judgmental. I agree with reframing it more positively and linking to our current meta discussion post.
    – galacticninja
    Commented Jun 21 at 7:06
  • 2
    "Because it kind of 'attacks' the poster ("low-quality and low-effort post") rather than explaining the choice of the community." Also, the community didn't say that ID questions are low quality and low effort, so it's likely that this is the opinion of only one user and shouldn't have been included in the close notice.
    – galacticninja
    Commented Jun 21 at 7:18
  • 1
    To me: low-quality= yes. Low-effort = no. But that's not really the point here and at the moment. Also, let's not point finger to a potential writer, it's not that important, but rather focus on the agreement to modify and the final draft of the notification. Seems much more important to me. We'll reach an agreement by discussing the points and giving arguments for the pros and cons.
    – OldPadawan
    Commented Jun 21 at 8:01
  • 1
    @galacticninja The reason for why the close-reason calls these questions such is in order to give some explanation as to why these questions aren't allowed, as that were the primary reasons they were done away with (and what the community very much agreed upon when this policy went into place). Giving such an explanation is generally better than just saying "your question is off-topic just because" (although you might think that's the reason ;-)). However, I agree it can come across as a direct diss of the user's question when it gets ultimately thrown in with the bad apples via such wording
    – Napoleon Wilson
    Commented Jun 21 at 16:06
  • 1
    It's currently a little bit confusing what exactly is proposed here. The question (and galacticninja's answer) talks about the note in the meta announcement, while your answer talks about the close notice, but also uses wording taken from the meta announcement note. I'd be fine with updating either of them, but just wanted to point this out. (Also, close-notices generally are bit of a maintenance hell since they reworked these some time ago.)
    – Napoleon Wilson
    Commented Jun 21 at 16:13
  • 1
    Can the downvoters explain why they might not want to spread the word about our policy discussion? I'm genuinely trying to understand the perspective behind this. Wouldn't we want more users to know about and participate in our policy discussion? 🤔
    – galacticninja
    Commented Jun 22 at 5:21
  • 1
    I DV because it seems to me that directing ID askers to the discussion is only intended to drive people who want IDQs to the discussion (by definition since they are asking one). Remove that and I'd be happy to update the close reason.
    – Paulie_D
    Commented Jun 22 at 15:58
  • 1
    Sure but this is CV reason is only addressed to people who will only vote one way i.e. IDQ askers. People who would vote against IDQ wouldn't post them in the first place.
    – Paulie_D
    Commented Jun 22 at 17:57
  • 1
    @Paulie_D - So you're saying that we should exclude users who want ID questions... from voting whether to allow ID questions, because they might vote in favour of it?
    – Valorum
    Commented Jun 22 at 19:35
  • 1
    What I am saying that is that people asking IDQ will only vote in favour so it's a biased suggestion in that way. Existing users already know they can vote on Meta and we already have this as a featured discussion.
    – Paulie_D
    Commented Jun 22 at 19:39
  • 1
    @Paulie_D Why not bring this to everyone's attention and let them vote? Letting users vote reveals the community's true stance on ID questions. SE's rep system (15 for upvotes, 125 for downvotes) ensures that voters are members meeting the required participation requirement. It's just fair to inform them about the discussion, especially since the close reason is visible to everyone, regardless of their opinion on ID questions.
    – galacticninja
    Commented Jun 23 at 0:52
  • 1
    @Paulie_D: "people asking IDQ will only vote in favour" = yes. And that's why I propose to link to a meta post that explains the policy and decision, with posts locked. And the possibility to read all of the discussion (and eventually vote if they have the rep) on other meta posts. At the moment, in my opinion, it's the less evil we could have to maybe please both sides.
    – OldPadawan
    Commented Jun 23 at 5:15
  • 1
    @OldPadawan That is what is actually done, though. The users get linked to the announcement that says the questions are off-topic and why and also links to the discussion this decision was based on. Now one could say the problem is that the announcement and/or discussion back then wasn't locked, which is ultimately what lead to the vote discrepancy all this fuss is about. However, locking wasn't seen as a good idea back then and it would have seemed rather unfair to just lock the entire discussion (and I don't want to to imagine the conspiracy complaints resulting from that)...
    – Napoleon Wilson
    Commented Jun 23 at 13:08
  • 1
    ...If there will ultimately be a new decision based on the new discussion, I still don't think locking it away would be a good idea. Maybe the announcement could be locked but not the discussion itself. At the end of the day, sometimes all you can do is just take the angry comments and continue explaining that voting the announcement down to hell isn't actually changing the announcement. ;-)
    – Napoleon Wilson
    Commented Jun 23 at 13:08
  • 2
    "Maybe we could look at making both the close notification and the meta post as informative and welcoming as possible.": that is exactly my point, what I've been writing in posts and comments for days now, and what I'd like to see us achieve, 2 posts, welcoming without accusatory tone (about the quality of the question), explaining our policy as nicely as can be. And, a way to help askers (as my choice, without answering their IDQ.)
    – OldPadawan
    Commented Jun 23 at 13:43
0

I believe that updating the note in the "We are discontinuing support for identification questions" meta discussion post will help drive more attention to our ongoing meta discussion at "What does the community want to do with identification questions?". I propose we change the note to something like:

NOTE: The Movies & TV SE community is currently reviewing its policy on identification questions. If you'd like to share your thoughts, please join the discussion: What does the community want to do with identification questions?

Just want quick help identifying a movie or TV show? Check out these helpful resources.

This updated note serves several purposes:

  1. It informs users about the ongoing policy review in a clear, concise manner.
  2. It emphasizes the community-driven nature of the discussion, encouraging broader participation.
  3. It maintains the helpful link for those seeking quick identification assistance.

By framing the policy review as a community effort and directly inviting input, we're likely to see increased engagement. This approach not only keeps users informed but also reinforces the collaborative spirit of our community.

What do you think? I'm open to further suggestions or refinements if you feel anything needs adjustment.

I also agree with OldPadawan's idea to modify the close notice shown for ID questions.

2
  • 2
    I DV because it seems to me that directing ID askers to the discussion is only intended to drive people who want IDQs to the discussion (by definition since they are asking one). Remove that and I'd be happy to update the close reason.
    – Paulie_D
    Commented Jun 22 at 16:00
  • 2
    @Paulie_D I'm not talking about the close reason here, but only the note in the aforementioned meta post. Why would we not want to bring this to everyone's attention and let them vote? Letting users vote reveals the community's true stance on ID questions. SE's rep system (15 for upvotes, 125 for downvotes) ensures that voters are members meeting the required participation requirement. It's just fair to inform them about the discussion, especially since the close reason is visible to everyone, regardless of their opinion on ID questions.
    – galacticninja
    Commented Jun 23 at 1:16

You must log in to answer this question.

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