Edit - Meta Stack Exchange

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.

1

I think the issue here is throwing the FAQ at new users, not the new contributor indicator itself. I certainly agree with finding this kind of canned comment for new users somewhere between weird and creepy, but this already happens and I think should be treated as a separate issue.
– Mad Scientist
Commented Aug 17, 2018 at 21:45
22

.....? "refusing to answer" is not hostile.
– user202729
Commented Aug 18, 2018 at 10:54
Yes, it’s creepy. I can still remember writing my first answers, and I probably would have been in your third category. It was already bad enough having only 1 or 101 reputation clearly visible under my name.
– user271002
Commented Aug 18, 2018 at 13:01
1

I agree very much with this answer. This is why I've always held out against using 'canned' comments - sure, they're easier to produce, but often less directly relevant. Giving a new user specific, on-point advice is much more likely to make them feel 'helped' than a canned comment that looks like it was produced by a bot.
– Rand al'Thor
Commented Aug 19, 2018 at 18:11
5

@user202729 Refusing to answer -- as opposed to not answering -- is hostile. Not answering because they're new is hostile.
– cfr
Commented Aug 20, 2018 at 0:36
I’m conflicted about this. On the one hand, your discussion reminds me of a vaguely similar idea that U&L rejected. On the other hand, if somebody wants to “stalk” new users, all they have to do is lurk in the First Posts Review Queue. I don’t even understand how this proposal (labeling new users) would make it any easier for a “stalker” to find new users than it already is.
– Scott - Слава Україні
Commented Aug 21, 2018 at 3:31
1

@Scott There's a difference between having to explicitly visit a queue and getting the information passively during normal browsing.
– Gilles 'SO- stop being evil'
Commented Aug 21, 2018 at 8:32
7

To be frank, I've spoken with users who've said that this flag (and the banner in the answer box warning them of the dire consequences of offending this new user) has made them fearful of answering and just not bothered.
– Richard
Commented Aug 22, 2018 at 11:40
2

In my experience, there's a run-the-gauntlet-and-take-your-licks new user experience on every SE site. I'm a decade user, and a moderator, and it still happens to me if I jump onto a new site. It amazes me how many people aren't driven off by that. It mostly seems to be based on existing users not trusting new faces to stick around and behave well, until they have proven they will. So if existing users are already noticing noobs and treating them differently, I really don't see the harm in the SE software also trying to recognize them, and reminding existing users to not decapitate them.
– T.E.D.
Commented Aug 22, 2018 at 14:11
"Automatic flags is another, but that only handles extreme cases where a sizable proportion of the needed help is helping the user off the site." Hehe
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Commented Aug 29, 2018 at 12:20

Add a comment |

Correct minor typos or mistakes
Clarify meaning without changing it
Add related resources or links
Always respect the author’s intent
Don’t use edits to reply to the author

create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
```
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
```
put returns between paragraphs
for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
_italic_ or **bold**
indent code by 4 spaces
backtick escapes `like _so_`
quote by placing > at start of line
to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>
[example](https://example.com)
<a href="https://example.com">example</a>

formatting help »
answering help »