Timeline for Let's stop displaying a user's accept rate
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2021 at 11:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://blog.stackoverflow.com with https://blog.stackoverflow.com
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 24, 2014 at 13:37 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Jul 26, 2012 at 19:52 | history | bounty ended | Bart | ||
| Jun 30, 2012 at 15:47 | comment | added | Aaron Bertrand Staff | @bytebuster I never said they were cheating. Being a bad user doesn't necessarily mean gaming the system. | |
| Jun 30, 2012 at 14:49 | comment | added | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | @AaronBertrand: If these users are cheating on their reputation, it's an issue of preventing reputation fraud. On the other hand, everyone is free to use the site as they wish, within the confines of fair use. Finally, the whole discussion is about 5 points of rep (accepted answer vs. upvote). No big deal if the asker failed to accept the answer. Others will mark it useful, providing twice as much per upvote. | |
| Jun 30, 2012 at 13:41 | comment | added | Aaron Bertrand Staff | @bytebuster I disagree that you can tell the quality of an asker by rep alone. We have a couple of habitually problematic users on our tags that are a never-ending source of frustration. Yet they have managed to amass significant rep that literally betrays the type of user they are, and in a lot of cases, the experience you'll have if you get involved with their question. I know to stay away from them by name only, not by reputation or accept rate. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 1:13 | comment | added | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | Excellent answer. One note: reputation itself is a sufficient gauge for telling "good" and "not-that-good" citizens apart. Before answering, one could check the asker's rep and decide for herself whether to answer or not. | |
| Jun 27, 2012 at 17:00 | comment | added | Yawus | @Matthew Read I was thinking about some sort of a radar chart with different user metrics on each axis, such as accept rate and voting, but I'm not sure if such a graphic would really help and not just be noise. | |
| Jun 27, 2012 at 16:24 | comment | added | user154510 | @Yawus I do not believe it's possible to do so in a useful way. Multidimensional subjective qualities cannot be collapsed to a one-dimensional objective quantity. | |
| Jun 27, 2012 at 16:14 | comment | added | Yawus | I don't know if it's just me, but the idea of a "citizenship metric" and determining a numerical value for identifying a good user just rubs me the wrong way. I can understand how it may be necessary or useful, but it just leaves me with a bad feeling in my mouth. | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 17:50 | comment | added | user154510 | @jmort253 Certainly. | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 14:58 | comment | added | jmort253 | @MatthewRead - If we did eliminate the accept rate, do you think it would be acceptable for SE to display more information and notifications to the users to "teach" them how to accept answers, since the community wouldn't be doing this job anymore? The cost of eliminating accept rate is that a googler may encounter more questions with no clear indication of what solved the op's problem. | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 14:42 | comment | added | user154510 | @jmort253 Commenting with a downvote an "exposing" yourself is optional; displaying the accept rate is not. They're not comparable. If they were, I would point out that downvoting is massively useful, and the accept rate not. My argument is that the costs are not worth it, not that we should remove everything that has a potential cost. | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 7:55 | comment | added | jmort253 | @JeffAtwood - This also seems a bit counter-intuitive with the goals of visibility. Almost every user action is visible. This was evident during the elections where several nominees were "outed" for having rude comments or displaying undesirable behaviors. A "citizenship metric" doesn't tell us as a community specifically how we can help the user specifically improve his/her citizenship metric and the behaviors that caused it to be low. | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 7:53 | comment | added | Bart | @JeffAtwood What doesn't click with me though is the desired effect of it. Say we have a broader metric visible to others. What should I do, or how should my behavior change if I stumble upon someone who is not acting responsibly. Other than the edits I already make or the guidance I already attempt to provide based on the actual content (the question) I see. | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 7:52 | comment | added | jmort253 | @JeffAtwood - How would you propose keeping the accept rate from dropping as a result? I realize many SO users can be a little overzealous in their dealings with users with low accept rates. But it is a reminder to many that they need to go back and finish what they started by asking the question. | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 7:50 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @bart sure why not? I think at a glance knowing if someone is a reasonably responsible citizen of a particular society is kind of a useful thing. | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 7:44 | comment | added | Bart | @JeffAtwood Would this metric still be publicly visible? A broader metric might certainly cut down on the targeted single-value-only comments we experience now. But should even such a metric be publicly visible? | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 7:19 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @jmort well, we had talked about replacing the "accept rate" with a more generalized "citizenship metric" which included other important stuff like how often they vote, whether they answer questions as well as ask, post on meta ever, etc etc etc. Not sure when/if that'll ever get done under the new regime, but it needs to happen. The problem is not the number, but that the number is a bit too narrow at the moment. | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 6:37 | comment | added | jmort253 | Hi Matt, if we remove the accept rate because it might encourage some negative commentary, then could this not lead to other things we should get rid of because there's the possibility of negative commentary. For instance, I downvoted someone and they called me a bad name. Does this mean we should get rid of downvotes too? I realize that's kind of an extreme example... One way new users on SO learn about SO is through commenting, and this includes how to accept answers. My concern is that legitimate accepts could drop as well as a result of user ignorance as to how the system works. | |
| Jun 20, 2012 at 21:01 | comment | added | Bart | +1 Absolutely excellent answer. I would almost feel bad for being there first. But hey, now each upvote will get you twice the rep. :p | |
| Jun 20, 2012 at 19:02 | history | answered | user154510 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |