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.

Rev

79

So curators are very much Meta visitors and displeasing them over and over again shouldn't be the way to go if we want clean sites.
– fedorqui 'SO stop harming'
Commented Feb 18, 2020 at 14:31
4

"% of answers" is provided only for meta actors but not for meta visitors, why is that?
– gnat
Commented Feb 18, 2020 at 14:35
7

...also, please consider editing to clarify whether analysed data included deleted posts or not
– gnat
Commented Feb 18, 2020 at 14:46
83

Thanks so much Yaakov. While it's still slightly frustrating that those invested in SO have known this for ages (if just intuitively - or in some cases being a mod recognising the same users in the flag/review queues and in meta posts either guiding/helping people, reporting bugs or suggesting new features), it's very welcome that someone's thought to ask a question of community concern from a different POV. It seems the numbers have talked and there's been a bit of a eureka moment here... I sincerely hope the momentum continues on this. I'll keep my fingers crossed (even if you don't! :p)
– Jon Clements
Commented Feb 18, 2020 at 15:02
17

Thanks for sharing this. It seems to clearly vindicate the voices on Meta who've been saying for the past ~n months "no really, we are worth far more than 0.015% of your calculus". I think Pekka's comment rings quite true. Regarding "61% / 66% of *post edits* on SO are saved by users", what do you mean by "saved by" here? Submitted by? Or something else?
– TylerH
Commented Feb 18, 2020 at 15:45
16

Hmm, I wonder how much of that content editing statistic is just Perter Mortensen ;-)
– Don't Panic
Commented Feb 18, 2020 at 16:49
41

Anyone else find it really ironic that this answer includes a link to a question and answer that points out these conclusions, back in July 2019?
– anonymous
Commented Feb 18, 2020 at 18:32
9

This analysis is nice to see. I might suggest looking at trends over prior years as well. I don't know if I'm alone, but I was sure fed up by mid-2019 and deliberately not "engaging" even when I saw things that I would have spent time helping with a year prior, to say nothing of two.
– jscs
Commented Feb 18, 2020 at 18:40
35

Ok, now management have numbers to know what every regular on metas already knew for a long time: that metas are critically important and shouldn't be neglected and that SE can't simply get rid of them thinking that tomorrow will be a better day than yesterday. Now, what SE's management will do to recover the broken and lost trust from the communities? What SE's management will do to recover from the loss of many experts on many sites?
– Victor Stafusa
Commented Feb 18, 2020 at 19:29
16

@VictorStafusa great question. I recommend that you check out MSE tomorrow, hopefully around this time.
– Yaakov Ellis
Commented Feb 18, 2020 at 19:34
8

@VictorStafusa I'll be shocked if anything of note is really said. Given some of the comments that staff (e.g., SC) made about Meta and some of the layoffs, short of spinning SO off as a non-profit or having a user Board of Directors I don't see anything being meaningful change anymore.
– anonymous
Commented Feb 18, 2020 at 19:43
27

Just wanted to say how much I appreciate this post, and particularly the tone. Feels like a long time since we have heard this level of transparency and acknowledgement of SO's mistakes. Personally, I found the company's position that (my words) "meta is just a bunch of angry people who don't represent the community" hard to fathom, but it sounds like there is maybe a shift away from that. Thank you so much.
– Steve Bennett
Commented Feb 18, 2020 at 21:00
13

There's one graph missing from this that I think would be extremely valuable: "% of answers from Meta visitors".
– Mark
Commented Feb 18, 2020 at 21:01
4

@Lamak in the light of what I learned today, this old story of .015% feels like "Titanic, meet the iceberg". Granted, there were signs of it even back then - I recall thinking of thousands votes cast on prominent meta posts and suspecting that company may underestimate its influence
– gnat
Commented Feb 18, 2020 at 22:30
12

Actually there might be an effect visible in the data. %of reviews of Meta actors went down a little bit over 2019 (at least the orange line from 50% to ~40%) and all the other lines for Meta Actors remained kind of constant, while the engagement peaked in October to December (8-10% compared to 5-7%). This means that Meta Actors did lower their share of curation (per person), probably they were busy writing on Meta instead.
– NoDataDumpNoContribution
Commented Feb 19, 2020 at 10:12

| Show 15 more comments

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 »