Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

13
  • 45
    I agree - First they added the percentage to publicly "shame" a user. The, when comments were too rude, they allowed removing them with a single flag. These are contradictory features...
    – Kobi
    Commented Jun 20, 2012 at 18:57
  • @Gnoupi Exactly. And the abuse I see (though admittedly I actively look for it and correct it) is quite severe. One of the worst examples is this one where a user actually made that comment an answer, which was subsequently accepted by the OP. Quickly flagged and deleted, but certainly something is wrong there. And this example is not an exception unfortunately.
    – Bart
    Commented Aug 27, 2012 at 15:18
  • @Bart: from what i see here it seems to me that users are very aware of the metrics so my question would be: how to quantify the term "help vampire users"? If there's only a couple of hundreds people that occasionally do so (on over a million of SO users i guess) then the problem is not relevant, or is it?
    – ElCid
    Commented Aug 27, 2012 at 17:11
  • @Bart, in retrospect so obvious. Off to play with data explorer I go!
    – Jesse
    Commented Dec 24, 2012 at 18:49
  • @KonradRudolph It really depends on the type of badgering. If merely informing in nature, fine. But on more than one occasion (and apparently frequently enough for this request to be honored) it tended to get quite ugly. Which is also why I stated that the system should be able to handle the friendly message behind the scenes, rather than rely on users. It seems however that this second part of the request has not (yet?) been implemented. Let's see how this goes.
    – Bart
    Commented Jan 23, 2013 at 9:56
  • @Spacedman That is rather slippery-slope indeed. A visible accept rate was addressed because of practical problems/negative side-effects. If you could make a similar well-argued and evidence based argument for the other items, by all means go ahead. But I don't see similar problems for usernames, gravatars and other items.
    – Bart
    Commented Jan 23, 2013 at 17:13
  • 2
    @Spacedman: Heh, very inventive, but this argument is oft deployed and seldom meaningful. Yes, you can move the line anywhere. No, we're not going to. The suggestion is to put the line here, so the argument should focus on that. A proposal to hide names from questions is something else. Commented Jan 26, 2013 at 19:57
  • 1
    Finally. When I was arguing that this metric is awful and promotes stupid actions like marking answers as answers when they aren't, I only got people arguing with me how I should ask better questions and not give up on questions. Now finally someone was able to prove that terrible metric has to go, and It's gone. HOORAY!
    – Istrebitel
    Commented Apr 9, 2013 at 8:42
  • Just thought I'd share an example of why I would have thought twice if there was an accept rate: stackoverflow.com/questions/19848585/… Commented Nov 9, 2013 at 4:02
  • Voted to close as no-repro because it is, this is resolved, and closing this should prevent the occasional noise answer here. If anybody wants to reinstate this for some reason, post it as a new FR.
    – Jason C
    Commented May 18, 2017 at 19:24
  • That works too, if you'd prefer to stop comments and votes as well. Either way.
    – Jason C
    Commented May 18, 2017 at 21:40
  • 1
    Now that user’s acceptance rate is not displayed, is there a way to calculate it?
    – matt
    Commented Sep 25, 2018 at 19:29
  • 1
    @matt you could always see how many questions a user asked, and narrow that down to accepted ones with a search like user:USERID is:question hasaccepted:yes
    – Bart
    Commented Sep 26, 2018 at 9:54