Timeline for Let's stop displaying a user's accept rate
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2013 at 14:06 | comment | added | bigtunacan | I'm a little late to the show here, but I'm disappointed to see the accept rate gone. I've never flamed a user for not accepting an answer, but I would use it sometimes to determine whether to try and answer a question. If it is a low complexity question that I know off the top of my head I will answer no matter the accept rate. If it takes a higher level of time investment on my part to determine an answer I will choose to invest that time on a question that has a better chance of paying me back. | |
| Jan 23, 2013 at 14:09 | comment | added | Seth J | @TimPost, if people are being nasty, punish them. Dock points from their profiles or suspend them. But don't remove a feature that helps others know if they are providing aid to someone who really doesn't care and isn't courteous. | |
| Jan 23, 2013 at 14:07 | comment | added | Seth J | I'm with you, @DaveNewton. I can't believe this is even a question. I'm so disappointed with this decision. Someone who never (or rarely) accepts an answer is discourteous. It's not about points. It's about saying "thank you". | |
| Jan 22, 2013 at 22:06 | history | edited | Dave Newton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 21 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2012 at 21:45 | comment | added | yorkw | Agreed, accept rate just like badge or reputation mechanism. the subjective purpose is to guide new user (though more on questioner side) how to use and participate in the community. Personally I think it works just fine. Everybody comes from a noob, for sophisticated user, just ignore it if you don't like it, this would be more reasonable than a simple-deletion requested by sophisticated user group, which doesn't sound quite fair. | |
| Aug 7, 2012 at 21:59 | comment | added | Almo | I agree with this one a lot. I use the accept rate, but I check their actual questions to see if they have gotten good answers to their questions before saying anything about it. | |
| Aug 1, 2012 at 11:02 | history | bounty ended | yms | ||
| Jun 27, 2012 at 17:30 | comment | added | Dave Newton | @TimPost Yeah, I recognize I'm likely in the minority :/ | |
| Jun 27, 2012 at 17:02 | comment | added | user50049 | Fortunately (and equally unfortunately) you're one of the few people that use the metric for it's designed purpose. The problem we're facing is nasty comments based completely on that value and people that could answer questions moving on to something where an answer promises 215 instead of 200 reputation points as the ultimate prize. I have no problem with the 'moving on' part, I do take issue with pressure to do things that might not be in the best interest of future visitors and needless work placed on moderators. | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 9:07 | comment | added | Dave Newton | @jadarnel On that aspect of his response, yes--reasonable people can disagree, but telling people they're "not qualified to answer" | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 5:11 | comment | added | Josh Darnell | "That's solidly douche territory" - Name calling, really? That's what we're doing now? | |
| Jun 20, 2012 at 23:03 | comment | added | user154510 | I'm not going to argue over whether it's possible for an opinion to be uninformed, and yeah, obviously that was my opinion and you're not bound by it. I also think defining every term I use is ridiculous and I could just as easily ask you to do the same for the terms you've used, by I don't think that's productive. | |
| Jun 20, 2012 at 21:33 | comment | added | Dave Newton | @MatthewRead (a) I don't have to be qualified by your standards to answer the question, (b) I've answered what, a thousand or two questions and have enough rep to have seen most behavior on SO anyway, and (c) you didn't address what you mean by "abuse", what "gentle" means, etc. I've rarely seen anything so out-of-line I've felt moved to comment on it-YMMV. Questioning my "qualifications", or assuming there are any, is a canard. | |
| Jun 20, 2012 at 20:02 | comment | added | Dave Newton | How did religion get in to this? ;) Meh--I don't have an issue with a combination of "gentle" and "public". | |
| Jun 20, 2012 at 20:00 | comment | added | Bart | I am not at all arguing against "the game". My suggestion for a gentile reminder behind the scenes should illustrate that. I just think there is a significant difference between such a reminder and a public notice which essentially states "Here people, look at this, he's not playing the game!!" | |
| Jun 20, 2012 at 19:59 | comment | added | user154510 | I'm not talking about system abuse, I'm referring to harassing people. It can't be quanitified any more than your answer can, and if you aren't familiar with users being harassed over this, then I honestly don't think you're qualified to answer the question. Sorry :(. I don't have an issue with gentle and appropriate reminders in general, either -- but that's not what generally happens. | |
| Jun 20, 2012 at 19:48 | comment | added | Dave Newton | @MatthewRead Define "abuse". I don't have an issue with people being reminded that SO is a collaborative effort and that askers, in addition to asking quality question, should reward those who attempt to help. Downvoting based on a low accept rate? That's abuse, and I don't know how you'd have evidence of that. What metrics are you using to quantify abuse, and what's your definition? | |
| Jun 20, 2012 at 19:42 | comment | added | user154510 | Comparing the number of people I've seen abusing others over the accept rate to those taking it as an opportunity to help, the former wins handily. The accept rate is a bright, colorful and in-your-face; people will make judgments based solely on it. I don't believe the benefits are worth the costs. | |
| Jun 20, 2012 at 19:26 | history | edited | Dave Newton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 405 characters in body
|
| Jun 20, 2012 at 19:23 | comment | added | Dave Newton | @MatthewRead I never said it was; I believe I said the opposite. I think letting users not play the "SO game" diminishes what SO is--my opinion. I use the accept rate as a cue to look at their questions; perhaps they can be improved if they're not being answered, perhaps they're OT, who knows. I use it as a way to see if a user might be struggling to use SO in the way I believe it's meant to be used. | |
| Jun 20, 2012 at 19:21 | comment | added | jcolebrand | I didn't say it was a sole metric of usefulness, only a guiding number to show further insight into a user's practice. Removing it from the usercard and showing it on the user profile to mods and self makes sense. | |
| Jun 20, 2012 at 19:20 | comment | added | user154510 | In what situation is it appropriate to make a judgment based solely on the accept rate? If you're supposed to go through the user's profile and evaluate them (which I disagree with as well), then how is the accept rate useful? It's just a shortcut to treating people poorly. | |
| Jun 20, 2012 at 19:17 | comment | added | Dave Newton | @jcolebrand I'm not sure. Maybe make it visible to higher-rep users who are (in theory!) more responsible and won't use it as a big stick? | |
| Jun 20, 2012 at 19:15 | comment | added | jcolebrand | So how can we balance that and keep a metric that has usefulness? Mods like having an instant glance of "this is a low-rep user who doesn't accept, and has a lot of questions, they need more guidance on how to use the network" and accept-rate is one of those metrics. | |
| Jun 20, 2012 at 19:09 | history | answered | Dave Newton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |