Timeline for Come Take a Look at our New Contributor Indicator!
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
54 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Feb 18, 2019 at 18:46 | comment | added | Servy | @zixuan Such a user will have been question banned by the time they've asked more than a handful of questions if they're not earning any reputation on any of their questions. The only way you'll see someone with 40 questions and 1 rep is if they're suspended. | |
| Feb 16, 2019 at 19:51 | comment | added | new Q Open Wid | Confused still. What if the user asked 40 questions with all negative score but none been flagged before and none been closed. Then the user is very familiar to the site though the user still has only 1 rep. | |
| Sep 4, 2018 at 19:10 | comment | added | Servy | @Zhigalin You are the one asserting that your question wouldn't have been reopened if you had followed the instructions given on what to do when your question is closed. You need to support such an assertion. Yes, some people will disagree on whether a given post is appropriate or not. That's okay. Just getting rid of all of the rules and letting everyone do whatever they want because dealing with disagreements over the rules is not a viable alternative; it's far worse, and creates a community that ceases to create useful content. | |
| Sep 4, 2018 at 19:06 | comment | added | Zhigalin |
@Servy it might have, it might have not. You appear to be defining "hostile" as "doing things that you don't like," that's not what the word means You know, hostility is not objective, it's subjective. I felt the hostility of SE when I first registered, I felt it again this time. The problem is not following the rules, the problem is that the rules are interpreted vaguely by those who is applying them so you need to fight every time and is is not productive, constructive or helping. Anyway, I am not going to change your mind and vice versa so let's end here before we will got moved to chat.
|
|
| Sep 4, 2018 at 18:30 | comment | added | Servy | @Zhigalin And what's your evidence for asserting that if you didn't go to chat the post wouldn't have been reopened? Additionally your assertion that when someone posted inappropriate content it was immediately deal with suggests that inappropriate behavior isn't welcome here, and is quickly addressed (something you'll rarely find basically anywhere else on the internet with user generated content at SO's scale). | |
| Sep 4, 2018 at 17:39 | comment | added | Servy | @Zhigalin Your evidence that doesn't work is you providing one example of it working just fine. That...doesn't support your position at all. In fact it refutes it. I hate to break it to you, but having a system in place for allowing duplicate questions to be closed as duplicates isn't hostile, nor is it hostile for someone to close a question and have it reopened shortly thereafter because others disagreed that it was a duplicate. You appear to be defining "hostile" as "doing things that you don't like," when that's not what the word means. | |
| Sep 4, 2018 at 17:35 | comment | added | Zhigalin |
@Servy you think new users are unable of reading and following the instructions I don't think so, you invented it. The problem is that even if you follow the instructions the result is not guaranteed, just because someone with a dupehammer have not bothered himself to actually read my question. That is what I call hostility. BTW, that person with dupehammer is among others here complaining about the waving hand indicator.
|
|
| Sep 4, 2018 at 17:21 | comment | added | Servy | @Zhigalin A question of yours being closed as a duplicate, and you needing to explain to others why the duplicate doesn't answer your question, doesn't make SO "hostile to new people". That you think new users are unable of reading and following the instructions given to them (to explain how the duplicate fails to answer their question) means you apparently think very little of them. It's not that hard. | |
| Sep 4, 2018 at 17:10 | comment | added | Zhigalin | If I was a newbie I'd have just quit SE. Fortunately I wasn't a newbie on SE so I went to close vote chat and asked WTF and my question got reopened by others, which caused an anger explosion by the one who have closed it and a RO intervention. Not an exciting or welcoming experience at all. (that time I thought, "wow, SE is as hostile to newbies as it was 4 years ago when I have registered") | |
| Sep 4, 2018 at 17:03 | comment | added | Zhigalin | @Servy this is not a matter of quality. For example I have asked a question which got instantly dupehammed. | |
| Sep 4, 2018 at 13:32 | comment | added | Servy | @Zhigalin SE is difficult to use for people that ask low quality questions and that don't take the time and effort to follow the rules and be. It's not hostile at all, and new users that spend the time it takes to actually ask good questions have great experiences and feel very welcomed, just as people who have been around for a long time and that consistently post substandard content have poorer experiences. That people unable or unwilling to follow the rules tend to go places that have very low standards isn't undesirable at all. | |
| Sep 1, 2018 at 23:57 | comment | added | Zhigalin | @Servy No one is saying that "people should only be nice to new users", the problem is that SE is very hostile to newbies, making them think "should ask anywhere else next time", so just the ones which are able to ignore all that hostility can remain on SE. This remainder are what the SE are trying to do to fix this issue. | |
| Aug 28, 2018 at 16:04 | comment | added | Servy | @OleAlbers Why should people only be nice to new users? Why shouldn't they be nice to users that have been around for more than a few days on that account? Also keep in mind that the vast majority of people, in the vast majority of situations, are being nice, so constantly telling people who are already being nice, that they should be nice, is just antagonizing them and making them feel accused and targeted, when they aren't doing anything wrong. | |
| Aug 28, 2018 at 15:39 | comment | added | Ole Albers | I WOULD agree if there would only be that "noob"-sticker. In fact (at least in germany) if you got a "Learner"-Sticker on your car others are even more aggressive (in my experience). BUT the wording does matter here. Reminding us to be polite and friendly CAN improve SO a lot. We will have to see if this really works, but I have the hopes that reminding us that we were beginners, too could work. | |
| Aug 25, 2018 at 2:58 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Aug 25, 2018 at 7:32 | |||||
| Aug 24, 2018 at 22:35 | comment | added | Bryan Oakley | @jpmc26 " and that indicates that you don't take what I'm saying seriously." - if that is what you inferred, I apologize. | |
| Aug 24, 2018 at 22:31 | comment | added | jpmc26 | @BryanOakley I'm hostile because you replied to what was clearly hyperbole with an argument about not everyone is more nervous because you're an exception, and that indicates that you don't take what I'm saying seriously. I even went on to elaborate that the point I was making was about a net increase site wide in negative emotion, which you then went on to dismiss as well in spite of evidence that the concerns have at least some fairly wide appeal. That you tried to sugar coat it didn't make this a more pleasant conversation; it just made it feel fake. | |
| Aug 24, 2018 at 22:15 | comment | added | Bryan Oakley | @jpmc26: you are right though about the numbers. In my head I was thinking more about the number of commenters, not the number of voters. Unfortunately, I don't have enough rep on this site to see all of the vote totals, I can only go by the final tally for each answer. | |
| Aug 24, 2018 at 22:12 | comment | added | Bryan Oakley | @jpmc26: " I find it insulting that you assume we're some kind of isolated minority that should just be ignored." - I do not assume that. Why are you being so hostile and negative? I absolutely do not believe you should be ignored. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I disrespect you. Neither do I think you should ignore people like me who think this is a great idea. | |
| Aug 24, 2018 at 22:07 | comment | added | jpmc26 | @BryanOakley There are not hundreds of thousands of active contributors. There's not more expressing agreement either. Hundreds of people have expressed agreement with the concerns raised on Meta. If we assume that this is some kind of representative sample (a fairly reasonable assumption), you must conclude that some large percentage of those hundreds of thousands are also impacted negatively. I find it insulting that you assume we're some kind of isolated minority that should just be ignored. | |
| Aug 24, 2018 at 22:03 | comment | added | Bryan Oakley | @jpmc26: ""If you do, what's your solution to making sure they do feel welcome?"_ - I don't have a so"_ - I don't have a solution. That's why I trust the maintainers of this site to do research, come up with good ideas, test them out, and then adjust based on the data. "The point is that a lot of conflict has erupted over this" - I'm not sure it's fair to say "a lot of conflict". A dozen or so people out of 100's of thousands, while important, isn't necessarily "a lot". | |
| Aug 24, 2018 at 22:01 | comment | added | Bryan Oakley | @jpmc26: "That's pretty callous to the feelings of your peers. Do you care about making sure people who have been here for years feel welcome?" - absolutely I care about making sure people who have been here for years feel welcome. "Why are new users more important than them?" - I do not believe they are more important, I just believe they have different needs, and I think this feature helps us to better meet there needs. I'm all for additional measures that help the other people you speak of. | |
| Aug 24, 2018 at 21:26 | comment | added | jpmc26 | @BryanOakley That's pretty callous to the feelings of your peers. Do you care about making sure people who have been here for years feel welcome? Because an awful lot of us don't anymore. Why are new users more important than them? If you do, what's your solution to making sure they do feel welcome? The point is that a lot of conflict has erupted over this; the overall net effect has been a pretty big increase in frustration and worry. | |
| Aug 24, 2018 at 19:46 | comment | added | Bryan Oakley | @jpmc26: "This entire welcoming push has been extremely intimidating... So it makes everyone more nervous" - not everyone. I think it's great, and don't feel nervous at all. If anything, I feel more energized to try a little harder to welcome new users. | |
| Aug 23, 2018 at 22:57 | comment | added | Raystafarian | I upvoted this back in the beginning, but now I'm commenting because apparently that upvote didn't speak loud enough that I agree with this, since it went live anyway. Maybe I should register a new account and comment on it, since that hand makes me LOUDER! | |
| Aug 22, 2018 at 23:19 | comment | added | jpmc26 | And let's not forget the effect on experienced, frequently contributing users. This entire welcoming push has been extremely intimidating and put a lot of people on edge to begin with. Now it's being rubbed in their faces even more. So it makes everyone more nervous. | |
| Aug 22, 2018 at 13:35 | comment | added | Servy | @amWhy I already mentioned that in the answer (see the second paragraph). Were you meaning to direct that to one of the commentors? | |
| Aug 21, 2018 at 23:11 | comment | added | amWhy | And what about the chronic recycled account: create an account, use for one day; next day: create a second account to re-ask a closed question from the day before, and two more homework questions; next day, create a third account... ... for weeks on end. This happens on MSE. Why should we be using a banner to perpetually rewelcome a serial-account-creator? | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 17:13 | history | edited | user102937 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Aug 20, 2018 at 15:26 | comment | added | user390407 | @Servy I will be able to if it gets 20 upvotes. I'm pretty sure that's the line for me. | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 15:22 | comment | added | user390407 | @Servy Yepp 6 months the magic number. Now I can ask questions.... | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 15:20 | comment | added | Servy | @Steve It's been 6 months since you last asked a question. You're almost certainly post banned. | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 15:20 | comment | added | user390407 | @Servy I can ask questions at the moment. My experience is different from that. When I asked questions about basics people generally assumed I was a troll. When I asked for help, people down voted my questions more because they didn't like me trying to improve. This step was needed. I'm what happens when you don't have this stuff around. | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 15:13 | comment | added | Servy | @Steve I assume you're post banned, given that you have a dozen (at least) poorly received questions. So it's irrelevant how you appear to people when asking a question because you can't ask questions. Also I never said that literally every single low rep user is a new user, I said that the two correlate well enough for practical purposes, and that the few exceptional cases aren't a problem. For example, if someone comments on one of your questions with advice on how to ask a good question, assuming you're new, I don't think that's that bad, as you clearly need said advice. | |
| Aug 20, 2018 at 15:10 | comment | added | user390407 | I have 14 rep on SO that isn't the association bonus, and I've been there for 3 years. Your point is invalid. | |
| Aug 17, 2018 at 19:45 | comment | added | Servy | You could argue that the contributor is wasting their time as the user is less likely to be improvable, but if they have so many bad contributions that we don't even think it's worth helping them they'd be question banned, so it would only be users with a small number of bad contributions that look new when they aren't, when using rep over this method. I think it's perfectly fine to treat such a user as a new user; it shouldn't hurt anything. | |
| Aug 17, 2018 at 19:45 | comment | added | Servy | @Shog9 I suppose the other thing to consider is what's the problem with your average user considering a small handful of users with some previous deleted bad questions to be new users, and as a result, spending a bit more time explaining how their content could be improved or how the site works, rather than seeing that they're experienced and moving on. If they've had a few bad contributions they clearly don't know how to act appropriately, so it's no bad that they're told how to act appropriately. | |
| Aug 17, 2018 at 19:36 | comment | added | Servy | @Shog9 I said that it correlates well enough with "new" to be a good enough approximation. The cases where it doesn't are rare enough that you don't need this feature to be able to tell who's new. So yes, it's possible for some people to have a ton of deleted content, and ask a new question, and look new when they're not, and thanks to this feature in those rare cases someone could tell that they're not new when they couldn't before. I don't think that's really that important. If you think it's a more common case, we'd need info not in SEDE, which only SE itself could provide. | |
| Aug 17, 2018 at 19:05 | comment | added | Shog9 | As for the information not being in SEDE... If it's not in SEDE, it's not on the question page either. Your base argument here is that showing the author's current reputation on a post suffices for the purpose of identifying folks who are new / likely inexperienced - but while reputation is probably a good measure of productive experience, it's certainly not a good indicator of "new". | |
| Aug 17, 2018 at 19:02 | comment | added | Shog9 | Good catch, @Servy; I wrote these in way too much of a hurry. Here's a combined query showing total posts, no-rep, low-rep, new and combinations. | |
| Aug 17, 2018 at 18:44 | history | edited | Servy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 511 characters in body
|
| Aug 17, 2018 at 18:30 | comment | added | Servy | @Shog9 I'm honestly not sure what either of those queries tells us about how many posts from low rep users are actually experienced users with a lot of past actions. There isn't a good way to see the amount of rep someone had at the time they posted a post, and since the data dump can't tie deleted posts to a user, we can't (accurately) see how much of a history someone had before asking a given question. Because we can't compute either of those things, I didn't try to write a data.SE query for them, as the information isn't there. | |
| Aug 17, 2018 at 18:28 | comment | added | Servy | @Shog9 So your first query shows that there are ~14k posts from 1 rep users in the past 7 days (as of the time of the dump). Your second query shows that there are ~1.2k first posts within 1 day of the data dump. There are ~15k first posts within 7 days of the data dump.. So there are slightly more first posts then there are posts by users with 1 rep over that 7 day period of time. Of course, this isn't measuring real first posts, just first non-deleted post. | |
| Aug 17, 2018 at 17:58 | comment | added | Shog9 | There are at best a trivial number, maybe a couple dozen, posts from suspended users in play here; not that it matters, since you have to look at a user's profile to know that they're suspended - and I'm not the one making the argument that merely looking at their reputation is sufficient. I'll leave it up to you to modify these trivial queries on public data to see what changing 1 to 100 brings you, since you're the one making the claim that this is sufficient in some way for some undefined (in your answer) value of "low reputation". | |
| Aug 17, 2018 at 17:58 | comment | added | Servy | @Shog9 Ah, I did indeed miss that. Although the point on suspended users still stand, and the fact that your queries aren't really describing what I was referring to in my questions. | |
| Aug 17, 2018 at 17:52 | comment | added | Shog9 | Ok, read the first query again @Servy - it's looking at Post CreationDate not User CreationDate. There is a bug though: I used getdate() instead of calculating the data dump creation date as in the other queries; correct results are 14K not 2K. | |
| Aug 17, 2018 at 17:43 | comment | added | Servy | @Shog9 Oh, and your queries are also looking at all of the posts of suspended users. | |
| Aug 17, 2018 at 17:39 | comment | added | Servy | @Shog9 And either way, using 1 rep really skews the results (by limiting the population). My point is more to consider, say, the average age of an account that has <100 rep when posting a question. My guess is that the age is pretty low, low enough to consider them, "new" (or even if the time since account creation is high, they've used the site so little that they're still "new to the site", and not a user with a lot of interactions). | |
| Aug 17, 2018 at 17:28 | comment | added | Servy | @Nathaniel I didn't really feel a need to address the possibility of someone creating the account on the site and then not asking a question for a while. The vast majority of the time they're the same time, or close enough to it. I'm aware of the criteria the question specifies, but just feel that saying, "user who recently asked their first question" instead of "new user" is just needlessly verbose as it's not a relevant point to what I'm discussing. | |
| Aug 17, 2018 at 17:27 | comment | added | Jon Clements | @Nathaniel first "visible" post... which does make me wonder what happens if the user asks a question, self-deletes it as they've already solved it or didn't want to post it in the first place, then comes back 3 months later to ask a genuine question - are they still considered as new? | |
| Aug 17, 2018 at 17:24 | comment | added | Nathaniel is protesting | Note that "new user" here isn't just creating a new account, as you imply – it is defined as one week after the first post in a particular community (per the OP) . | |
| Aug 17, 2018 at 17:20 | history | edited | Servy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 398 characters in body
|
| Aug 17, 2018 at 17:18 | history | answered | Servy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |