Return to Answer

I selected YES. Lifting this site to too high quality level would render it less interesting for me and for those out there who plan to post so called low quality questions. But if the owner (or his delegates) of the site wants to effectively reduce those low quality questions, there would be a few practical ways to do it. One is to increase radically the closure and wipe off power by selectively giving it downwards in the ranking list:

1. The questions go by default to the trashcan. To lift the question out of the trashcan a)force the questioner to fill a form where he must add the minimum wanted things. One missig or wrong detail => the question stays in the trashcan. OR b) the questioner should have high enough non-junk reputation (see 2)

2. make a difference between junk reputation and reputation got from accredited members i.e. from people with trusted care of the quality of the questions and answers. The reputation can be a 2-dimensional (amount, the mean accredition level of the source) or accredited members could have bigger weight. Perhaps any voting should be possible only for accredited members.

The site owner (or his delegates) selects the first accredited members. They can call more or disaccredite existing ones. The total number of the accredited members is limited. To get disaccredition needs only few downvotes from the other accredited members.

Accredited members have tools for easy monitoring of all actions in the site, including the actions of the accredited members. They can wipe off anything that a non-accredited member have written.

ADD: I personally do not support the birth of "The Accrediteds" It's quite powerful group compared to those who today can close and wipe off content + fire other members. But I am afraid that the idea of keeping the site clean by founding The Accrediteds is not my invention. It has reinvented in other circumstances as long as the history has been written as a general solution to all.

I have seen many of the how-to questions interesting and I admit that I have written plenty of answers by guessing, what the questioner actually wants. In addition I have answered without worrying that the question shows low or 0 own effort and definitely no higher ambitions than replicating something already existing. Shortly: I am one of those who have been seen inviting more junk to flood in.

So, we have a contradiction. I invite more "junk" to flood in and many of us want to reduce it radically, leaving only those which fulfill their quality specs.

One solution without increasing the general closure and cleansing power or stamping the junk inviters harmful is to force the questioner classify his question by filling a form which is checked automatically. The question will not become visible before there's content for all slots the questioner has crossed in the starting form.

Those who do not want to see software usage technical how-tos with low shown own effort can keep invisible the questions which are in the beginning classified as software usage tech how-tos with low shown own effort.

I selected YES. Lifting this site to too high quality level would render it less interesting for me and for those out there who plan to post so called low quality questions. But if the owner (or his delegates) of the site wants to effectively reduce those low quality questions, there would be a few practical ways to do it. One is to increase radically the closure and wipe off power by selectively giving it downwards in the ranking list:

1. The questions go by default to the trashcan. To lift the question out of the trashcan a)force the questioner to fill a form where he must add the minimum wanted things. One missig or wrong detail => the question stays in the trashcan. OR b) the questioner should have high enough non-junk reputation (see 2)

2. make a difference between junk reputation and reputation got from accredited members i.e. from people with trusted care of the quality of the questions and answers. The reputation can be a 2-dimensional (amount, the mean accredition level of the source) or accredited members could have bigger weight. Perhaps any voting should be possible only for accredited members.

The site owner (or his delegates) selects the first accredited members. They can call more or disaccredite existing ones. The total number of the accredited members is limited. To get disaccredition needs only few downvotes from the other accredited members.

Accredited members have tools for easy monitoring of all actions in the site, including the actions of the accredited members. They can wipe off anything that a non-accredited member have written.

ADD: I personally do not support the birth of "The Accrediteds" It's quite powerful group compared to those who today can close and wipe off content + fire other members. But I am afraid that the idea of keeping the site clean by founding The Accrediteds is not my invention. It has been reinvented as a general solution to all in other circumstances as long as the history has been written.

I have seen many of the how-to questions interesting and I admit that I have written plenty of answers by guessing, what the questioner actually wants. In addition I have answered without worrying that the question shows low or 0 own effort and definitely no higher ambitions than replicating something already existing. Shortly: I am one of those who have been seen inviting more junk to flood in.

So, we have a contradiction. I invite more "junk" to flood in and many of us want to reduce it radically, leaving only those which fulfill their quality specs.

One solution without increasing the general closure and cleansing power or stamping the junk inviters harmful is to force the questioner classify his question by filling a form which is checked automatically. The question will not become visible before there's content for all slots the questioner has crossed in the starting form.

Those who do not want to see software usage technical how-tos with low shown own effort can keep invisible the questions which are in the beginning classified as software usage tech how-tos with low shown own effort.

I selected YES. Lifting this site to too high quality level would render it less interesting for me. But if the owner (or his delegates) of the site wants to effectively reduce those low quality questions, there would be a few practical ways to do it. One is to increase radically the closure and wipe off power by selectively giving it downwards in the ranking list:

1. The questions go by default to the trashcan. To lift the question out of the trashcan a)force the questioner to fill a form where he must add the minimum wanted things. One missig or wrong detail => the question stays in the trashcan. OR b) the questioner should have high enough non-junk reputation (see 2)

2. make a difference between junk reputation and reputation got from accredited members i.e. from people with trusted care of the quality of the questions and answers. The reputation can be a 2-dimensional (amount, the mean accredition level of the source) or accredited members could have bigger weight. Perhaps any voting should be possible only for accredited members.

The site owner (or his delegates) selects the first accredited members. They can call more or disaccredite existing ones. The total number of the accredited members is limited. To get disaccredition needs only few downvotes from the other accredited members.

Accredited members have tools for easy monitoring of all actions in the site, including the actions of the accredited members. They can wipe off anything that a non-accredited member have written.

ADD: I personally do not support the birth of "The Accrediteds" It's quite powerful group compared to those who today can close and wipe off content + fire other members. But I am afraid that the idea of keeping the site clean by founding The Accrediteds is not my invention. It has reinvented in other circumstances as long as the history has been written as a general solution to all.

I have seen many of the how-to questions interesting and I admit that I have written plenty of answers by guessing, what the questioner actually wants. In addition I have answered without worrying that the question shows low or 0 own effort and definitely no higher ambitions than replicating something already existing. Shortly: I am one of those who have been seen inviting more junk to flood in.

So, we have a contradiction. I invite more "junk" to flood in and many of us want to reduce it radically, leaving only those which fulfill their quality specs.

One solution without increasing the general closure and cleansing power or stamping the junk inviters harmful is to force the questioner classify his question by filling a form which is checked automatically. The question will not become visible before there's content for all slots the questioner has crossed in the starting form.

Those who do not want to see software usage technical how-tos with low shown own effort can keep invisible the questions which are in the beginning classified as software usage tech how-tos with low shown own effort.

I selected YES. Lifting this site to too high quality level would render it less interesting for me and for those out there who plan to post so called low quality questions. But if the owner (or his delegates) of the site wants to effectively reduce those low quality questions, there would be a few practical ways to do it. One is to increase radically the closure and wipe off power by selectively giving it downwards in the ranking list:

1. The questions go by default to the trashcan. To lift the question out of the trashcan a)force the questioner to fill a form where he must add the minimum wanted things. One missig or wrong detail => the question stays in the trashcan. OR b) the questioner should have high enough non-junk reputation (see 2)

2. make a difference between junk reputation and reputation got from accredited members i.e. from people with trusted care of the quality of the questions and answers. The reputation can be a 2-dimensional (amount, the mean accredition level of the source) or accredited members could have bigger weight. Perhaps any voting should be possible only for accredited members.

The site owner (or his delegates) selects the first accredited members. They can call more or disaccredite existing ones. The total number of the accredited members is limited. To get disaccredition needs only few downvotes from the other accredited members.

Accredited members have tools for easy monitoring of all actions in the site, including the actions of the accredited members. They can wipe off anything that a non-accredited member have written.

ADD: I personally do not support the birth of "The Accrediteds" It's quite powerful group compared to those who today can close and wipe off content + fire other members. But I am afraid that the idea of keeping the site clean by founding The Accrediteds is not my invention. It has reinvented in other circumstances as long as the history has been written as a general solution to all.

I have seen many of the how-to questions interesting and I admit that I have written plenty of answers by guessing, what the questioner actually wants. In addition I have answered without worrying that the question shows low or 0 own effort and definitely no higher ambitions than replicating something already existing. Shortly: I am one of those who have been seen inviting more junk to flood in.

So, we have a contradiction. I invite more "junk" to flood in and many of us want to reduce it radically, leaving only those which fulfill their quality specs.

One solution without increasing the general closure and cleansing power or stamping the junk inviters harmful is to force the questioner classify his question by filling a form which is checked automatically. The question will not become visible before there's content for all slots the questioner has crossed in the starting form.

Those who do not want to see software usage technical how-tos with low shown own effort can keep invisible the questions which are in the beginning classified as software usage tech how-tos with low shown own effort.

I selected YES. Lifting this site to too high quality level would render it less interesting. But if the owner (or his delegates) of the site wants it, there would be a few practical ways to do it:

1. The questions go by default to the trashcan. To lift the question out of the trashcan a)force the questioner to fill a form where he must add the minimum wanted things. One missig or wrong detail => the question stays in the trashcan. OR b) the questioner should have high enough non-junk reputation (see 2)

2. make a difference between junk reputation and reputation got from accredited members i.e. from people with trusted care of the quality of the questions and answers. The reputation can be a 2-dimensional (amount, the mean accredition level of the source) or accredited members could have bigger weight. Perhaps any voting would be possible only for accredited members.

The site owner selects the first accredited members. They can call more or disaccredite existing ones. The total number of the accredited members is limited. To get disaccredition needs only few downvotes from the other accredited members.

Accredited members have tools for easy monitoring of all actions in the site, including the actions of the accredited members. They can wipe off anything that a non-accredited member have written.

I selected YES. Lifting this site to too high quality level would render it less interesting for me. But if the owner (or his delegates) of the site wants to effectively reduce those low quality questions, there would be a few practical ways to do it. One is to increase radically the closure and wipe off power by selectively giving it downwards in the ranking list:

1. The questions go by default to the trashcan. To lift the question out of the trashcan a)force the questioner to fill a form where he must add the minimum wanted things. One missig or wrong detail => the question stays in the trashcan. OR b) the questioner should have high enough non-junk reputation (see 2)

2. make a difference between junk reputation and reputation got from accredited members i.e. from people with trusted care of the quality of the questions and answers. The reputation can be a 2-dimensional (amount, the mean accredition level of the source) or accredited members could have bigger weight. Perhaps any voting should be possible only for accredited members.

The site owner (or his delegates) selects the first accredited members. They can call more or disaccredite existing ones. The total number of the accredited members is limited. To get disaccredition needs only few downvotes from the other accredited members.

Accredited members have tools for easy monitoring of all actions in the site, including the actions of the accredited members. They can wipe off anything that a non-accredited member have written.

ADD: I personally do not support the birth of "The Accrediteds" It's quite powerful group compared to those who today can close and wipe off content + fire other members. But I am afraid that the idea of keeping the site clean by founding The Accrediteds is not my invention. It has reinvented in other circumstances as long as the history has been written as a general solution to all.

I have seen many of the how-to questions interesting and I admit that I have written plenty of answers by guessing, what the questioner actually wants. In addition I have answered without worrying that the question shows low or 0 own effort and definitely no higher ambitions than replicating something already existing. Shortly: I am one of those who have been seen inviting more junk to flood in.

So, we have a contradiction. I invite more "junk" to flood in and many of us want to reduce it radically, leaving only those which fulfill their quality specs.

One solution without increasing the general closure and cleansing power or stamping the junk inviters harmful is to force the questioner classify his question by filling a form which is checked automatically. The question will not become visible before there's content for all slots the questioner has crossed in the starting form.

Those who do not want to see software usage technical how-tos with low shown own effort can keep invisible the questions which are in the beginning classified as software usage tech how-tos with low shown own effort.