Timeline for Testing three-vote close and reopen on 13 network sites
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
62 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 27, 2022 at 0:35 | answer | added | JamieB | timeline score: -6 | |
| Aug 27, 2021 at 13:39 | comment | added | kjetil b halvorsen | It seems that on sites (like Cross Validated) where there is now 3-votes-to-close, the associated meta site still has 5-votes-to-close? Why? It feels like the same rules should apply to a site and its meta! | |
| Jun 18, 2021 at 13:59 | answer | added | Mobeus Zoom | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 26, 2021 at 15:31 | history | edited | Catija |
edited tags
|
|
| May 21, 2021 at 2:31 | answer | added | Kyle Jones | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 19, 2021 at 14:38 | comment | added | ColleenV | @Braiam On the whole, the migration path has been a positive thing. I'd like for it to stay that way. Dropping the migration path would throw the baby out with the bathwater. | |
| May 19, 2021 at 13:33 | comment | added | Braiam | @ColleenV how about if you ask to be dropped from ELU migration targets? | |
| May 11, 2021 at 19:51 | comment | added | Sebastian Simon | Now I’ve read multiple times that moderators (and also gold badgers) aren’t always comfortable with using their unilateral closing powers all the time. Is it time to reconsider these proposals: How Do I Opt Out of Privileges? and Add a way for moderators to cast a normal, non binding close/open vote? Sure, the binding close-vote is a privilege, but it is also a burden — an unnecessary one. Just give these privileged users a choice: binding vote or regular vote. I don’t see any problems in this, only solutions to existing problems. | |
| May 11, 2021 at 19:15 | comment | added | AliceD | I love this idea. I've been admonished by other users when I went through the close-votes que when it reached the near-hundred numbers because I was mod-hammering questions for closure. Yet I think that keeping the site up to standards needs the close-vote queue to be kept under control. To lay down that hammer is the most welcome gift that can be given to mods faced with the dilemma of choosing between the mod hammer or allowing sub-standard questions to persist and thrive on our sites! Thanks for giving this idea a chance! | |
| May 11, 2021 at 1:51 | answer | added | JBH | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 10, 2021 at 12:32 | answer | added | user995796 | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 9, 2021 at 21:24 | answer | added | user1271772 | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 9, 2021 at 13:54 | answer | added | Tom Au | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 7, 2021 at 18:21 | answer | added | theforestecologist | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 7, 2021 at 11:08 | comment | added | ColleenV | @Catija I’m not really asking for any particular action here. I’m giving feedback about how the decision was handled. I don’t know whether it will be a burden or not. Of the 11 that were split decisions, how many were well-received on ELL? I don’t have the reputation to see the migrated away page on ELU, but this query I cobbled together a couple years ago shows that 1/3 or less of the migrations get an upvote on ELL. Counting votes on ELU doesn’t measure “good” migrations. | |
| May 7, 2021 at 6:20 | comment | added | Catija | This doesn't capture questions that initially attracted two migration votes but later got three other types of close votes. That's not as easily accessible in a dashboard. For reference, I was able to get this data from the 10k migrated away Tool page on ELU - english.stackexchange.com/tools/posts/migrated/away. As to warning ELL - Sure, I could post something on ELL meta - so could you. I didn't think about it, until you mentioned it and, while there are a lot of migrations to ELL, I don't think that this is going to cause some huge burden to ELL. | |
| May 7, 2021 at 6:15 | comment | added | Catija | @ColleenV I checked the 20 most recent migrations here: and what I found was - Mod migrations: 4 Unanimous migrations: 5 Split decision migrations: 11 Also, to compare to what that would have looked like with only three votes - Unanimous migrations in first three votes: 7 Two of first three *not for migration: 3 So, of the 20 most recent migrations, if it required unanimous voting, only 11 of the 20 would have been migrated. If 2/3 is required, 17 would have been migrated. So making it unanimous would have a negative impact if you consider migrations generally good. | |
| May 7, 2021 at 1:39 | comment | added | ColleenV | @Catija Looking at the data (well it has been a while, but I don’t think it’s changed much) the migration path from ELU to ELL is a net positive even if we occasionally get the what-were-you-thinking migrations. My concerns are 1: this change affects ELL but our community not only had no say, we weren’t even informed 2: there is no data that I’m aware of that supports that 2/3 is better than 3/3 for migrations. It just a guess that seems logical. 3: You’re ignoring that migrations are supposed to be rare. A question not getting closed quickly is a different impact than a blocked migration. | |
| May 6, 2021 at 22:42 | comment | added | Catija | I'm having to balance things here. It's much more similar to have the 2/3 ratio vs 3/5 ratio rather than having 3/3. One person could prevent all migrations simply by using any other close reason - whether intentionally or accidentally. You're talking about it like I've made it impossible to prevent migrations rather than considering the other possibility. Honestly, I've really never liked migrations between ELL and ELU because they tend to be terrible quality and because there's not enough participation on ELL to fight them, @ColleenV - much rather just go back to mod-only migrations. | |
| May 6, 2021 at 22:38 | comment | added | ColleenV | It also occurs to me that while it’s easier than ever to migrate stuff to ELL, we still need the same number of votes to reject a migration. Changes to migration paths should involve both sites, even if it’s just a “hey, this is changing” post. | |
| May 6, 2021 at 22:01 | comment | added | ColleenV | @Catija Is there any indication that the current migration votes need adjusting? So what if some questions get closed because they’re low quality instead of migrated? You’re assuming the amount of questions currently getting migrated needs to be adjusted upwards, when honestly there’s still quite a few stinkers getting through, and dropping the requirement is going to make it harder for people to stop the migration of crap. | |
| May 6, 2021 at 20:42 | comment | added | Catija | @ColleenV With only three votes to close, if I only changed the votes to close and not the migration concurrence number, the occasions where migrations would happen would be drastically reduced. Only questions that were unilaterally closed as needing to be migrated would ever get migrated. Until now, it's only required 3 in 5 voters agreeing for migration - I felt this was an appropriate change but I'm happy to reconsider should it be seen that it has a huge increase on the number of migrations that happen away from these sites. | |
| May 6, 2021 at 19:26 | comment | added | ColleenV | Why have the migration votes been changed and why didn’t the sites that are the most frequent migration targets get to weigh in on that decision? ELL has had trouble in the past with very low quality migrations from ELU, so the ELL community should have had some input on whether that was a good idea. | |
| May 6, 2021 at 17:35 | comment | added | Catija | @hkotsubo The data from the first few days of any test like this can be somewhat misleading - the test itself can cause additional awareness and participation that doesn't reflect the natural behaviors of people on the site. As such the plan is to not actually look at the first week or so of data when assessing the outcomes. The 45-days includes a buffer so that I can grab a nice, clean 30-day period in the middle or so. Regardless, the site settings have been changed at this point. | |
| May 6, 2021 at 17:32 | history | edited | Catija | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 155 characters in body
|
| May 6, 2021 at 15:40 | comment | added | hkotsubo | While I understand that, due to "timezone issues", you couldn't set the configs yet, it's rather disappointing that the test isn't active yet in SOpt. Most of the site's audience is in Brazil, and it's almost 1 pm here, which means we lost half of the first day of the test (will this be compensated in the 45th day?) | |
| May 6, 2021 at 9:34 | answer | added | Hauke Reddmann | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 6, 2021 at 4:34 | history | edited | Jon Clements | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
missed a twelve -> thirteen
|
| May 5, 2021 at 18:15 | answer | added | rumtscho | timeline score: 17 | |
| May 5, 2021 at 17:08 | comment | added | Catija | @anonymous2 Yeah, I'll be trying to be certain we only consider mod hammers - so fifth or third votes would be excluded from the count. I know a lot of mods are OK with those votes but, on the scales I'm seeing, the votes tend to be unilateral or second votes at best in many cases. :) | |
| May 5, 2021 at 17:06 | comment | added | yagmoth555 | Thanks to include SF, it's appreciated. Now we are in the low review completion, but in the past it was moderator-led too, but well it take a lot of time to do that and other tasks. | |
| May 5, 2021 at 17:05 | comment | added | anonymous2 | When you say no increase in moderator close/reopening, I assume you mean no increase in hammering closed? In other words, if the moderator casts the third vote, it wouldn't be considered "moderator closing"? For myself personally, I'm much more likely to act on a post as a moderator if it's already at 3 or 4 close votes, and the increased number of posts that will be close to threshold could alter moderators' behaviour | |
| May 5, 2021 at 15:07 | answer | added | Chris Davies | timeline score: 16 | |
| May 4, 2021 at 21:58 | answer | added | Makoto | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 4, 2021 at 17:17 | comment | added | Largato | Glad to see we (SOpt) will participate. Thanks @hkotsubo and Catija. | |
| May 4, 2021 at 16:11 | comment | added | hkotsubo | @Catija I recognize that SOpt community has lots of problems regarding low community participation in the moderation activities, so I'm also concerned about the test results. I've just posted in our meta trying to engage the community to participate on this test. Anyway, thank you very much for your quick response and action. Now it's up to us to make this test successful. | |
| May 4, 2021 at 15:52 | comment | added | rumtscho | @Catija this is how we saw it back then too, that there is no need to make a distinction between all reasons (not only have they changed over the years, but there is still a strong overlap, and sometimes mixing-up of when each one should be applied). It is the distinction between duplicate (rarely disputed + less likely to be recognizable by nonmod) and everything else. We didn't think of migrations back then, and we have very few of those anyway. Our single-handed hammer statistics changed a lot after removing dupes. | |
| May 4, 2021 at 15:45 | comment | added | Catija | @rumtscho That's a good thing to think about - all of the close reasons are lumped together and I haven't broken them out that way but it's a good idea to do that with duplicates (and maybe migrations?) But I think those are the only ones that may need special consideration. In all, over 60 days, the Cooking mods have closed 46 and the community 20. :) | |
| May 4, 2021 at 15:39 | comment | added | rumtscho | @Catija some years ago, Cascabel and me tried calculating our own mod closing percentage on cooking, to see if we are very likely to overrule the community :) and noticed quickly that it makes a lot of sense to distinguish between a mod hammer for duplicates and a mod hammer for one of the other reasons. Dupes are usually more clear-cut, and also require the memory of "I know I have seen this", which our current high rep users don't have, since they have been around for a shorter time than the mods. Did you make that distinction in counting the mod-close percentage? | |
| May 4, 2021 at 15:19 | answer | added | E.P. | timeline score: 25 | |
| May 4, 2021 at 14:43 | history | edited | Catija | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added SO pt.
|
| May 4, 2021 at 14:27 | comment | added | Catija | @hkotsubo Why would it not be possible if we've done it on SO and other sites? We can't make it asymmetric, with close requiring a different number of votes as reopen, but there's nothing preventing y'all from getting this changed other than us needing to find the time to actually test it. I looked at the numbers and it does look like the mods are doing a ton of work and so I am going to get this going on SOpt as part of the test - with the big caveat that I'm concerned that it won't show much improvement if the users don't actually do any of the work. | |
| May 4, 2021 at 14:13 | comment | added | hkotsubo | @Catija "y'all were still discussing it and that no decision had been made" - Well, we were waiting for the CM response (that one that never came) before going on with the discussion... There was no point in deciding anything if they say it's not possible, for example. If they've said it's possible to change the threshold, we could continue and make a final decision... But anyway, regardless of what happened, is there any possibility to consider including SOpt in this (or maybe some future) test? | |
| May 4, 2021 at 13:47 | comment | added | Catija | And... not that it's a great excuse because I should have said something - I haven't responded to any of these posts as far as I can remember. I'm very frustrated that it's taken so long to get this project moving and I apologise for that but I had no way of knowing when it would actually happen. I did write an answer here on MSE when someone asked what was going on and I have tried to be communicative with the mods who have asked me about it directly. We've been incredibly short-handed the last year and it's only now, with the new hires, that we're finally able to get things moving. | |
| May 4, 2021 at 13:42 | comment | added | Catija | @hkotsubo I'm sorry - but, while I did get a note from JNat back in January 2020, the last thing I heard was that y'all were still discussing it and that no decision had been made - so there wasn't anything for us to respond about and I didn't hear anything else that I can remember. Since that time, we rolled out a way for mods to draw attention to things that need our help - using the status-review tag. When I went to make a list of sites to consider for this test, I missed SOpt because that tag wasn't used. | |
| May 4, 2021 at 12:47 | comment | added | hkotsubo | In SOpt, we discussed that about a year ago (with relative community support on lowering the threshold). One of our mods even questioned one CM about that, and we've never got any response. And now I'm surprised that you're not only doing this test, but also ignored SOpt. You (the CM team) could've said "we're working on it" in our meta, at least we'd know our request wasn't ignored, but instead you left the impression that you simply ignored us. I'm really disappointed. | |
| May 4, 2021 at 11:36 | answer | added | GlorfindelMod | timeline score: 48 | |
| May 4, 2021 at 11:31 | history | edited | This_is_NOT_a_forum | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Used the official name of two sites [<https://webapps.stackexchange.com/tour> <https://wordpress.stackexchange.com/tour>].
|
| May 4, 2021 at 11:24 | history | edited | This_is_NOT_a_forum | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Active reading [<https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/811/shog9> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPress> <https://wordpress.stackexchange.com/tour>]. Added some context.
|
| May 4, 2021 at 10:22 | answer | added | bad_coder | timeline score: 19 | |
| May 4, 2021 at 6:44 | answer | added | Werlious | timeline score: -20 | |
| May 4, 2021 at 5:04 | history | edited | Catija | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixing link.
|
| May 4, 2021 at 1:59 | answer | added | Lars Bosteen | timeline score: 15 | |
| May 4, 2021 at 0:35 | history | edited | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Full sites without a design require only 500 rep
|
| May 3, 2021 at 20:17 | history | edited | Catija | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| May 3, 2021 at 20:16 | answer | added | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog | timeline score: 13 | |
| May 3, 2021 at 20:13 | history | edited | Luuklag | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
expended table header text, clarified sub-titles
|
| S May 3, 2021 at 20:09 | history | edited | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| S May 3, 2021 at 20:09 | history | suggested | caird coinheringaahing | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added tables
|
| May 3, 2021 at 20:08 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 3, 2021 at 20:09 | |||||
| May 3, 2021 at 19:55 | history | edited | Catija | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| May 3, 2021 at 19:49 | history | asked | Catija | CC BY-SA 4.0 |