Timeline for Give high-rep users extra weight on close votes
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 12, 2014 at 13:00 | comment | added | Kermit | @JasonC Not sure why it needs to considering that close votes exist currently without being based on tag badges. | |
| Nov 11, 2014 at 15:42 | comment | added | Jason C | This needs to be based on tag badges, if anything, and certainly not just on reputation, which is kind of a joke. | |
| May 7, 2014 at 19:18 | comment | added | roippi | I really like this schema. Since nobody's mentioned it I'll add that reopen votes should be equally weighted - it should be as easy (or easier) to reopen a question as it is to close it. | |
| May 7, 2014 at 0:52 | comment | added | user456814 | I'm not sold on removing the tag requirement. The users who are best able to determine about whether or not a question about a particular tag should be closed are the ones who have the most experience with that tag (e.g. gold badge users). Those users will know a lot about what questions have already been asked in that tag, and should be able to have better judgement than another 20k user without a gold badge. I avoid voting on c and c++ questions, because I have little experience with those domains. | |
| May 2, 2014 at 19:56 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | @FrédéricHamidi: Honestly, if this is implemented, I don't want people to opt out of it. The folks who are thinking "I want my vote to count for 1/5 of the total" are splitting hairs. | |
| May 2, 2014 at 19:53 | comment | added | Frédéric Hamidi | @Robert, I understand that personally, but I was trying to cater to our "not wanting binding votes" citizens. | |
| May 2, 2014 at 19:53 | comment | added | Kermit | @RobertHarvey which is much better than 5 and makes there a consensus required with 2. | |
| May 2, 2014 at 19:51 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | It doesn't matter how much your vote will weigh. Either you think the question should be closed, or you don't. There will always be some degree of community consensus; even with this scheme it still requires two community members to close. | |
| May 2, 2014 at 19:50 | comment | added | Frédéric Hamidi | @Robert, yes, the banner can remain unchanged. I was thinking about the vote to close link. What do you think about displaying both values (before, after), so voters are reminded how much their vote will weigh? | |
| May 2, 2014 at 19:49 | comment | added | Kevin B | I think adding the rep count tooltip to the close banner would suffice, that way if there is any question you can hover over the names to see who has the rep. | |
| May 2, 2014 at 19:48 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | You don't need to display weights in the closing banner at all, just the close voters. | |
| May 2, 2014 at 19:46 | comment | added | Kermit |
@FrédéricHamidi That's kind of what I had in mind. The value displayed would be the "weight count" as you described: close(3.5)
|
|
| May 2, 2014 at 19:46 | comment | added | Frédéric Hamidi |
@Kermit, how do you see this reflected in the UI? Would we be comfortable with seeing things like close(1.5)? Should we translate into "relative" votes, something like close(1.5->4) for a 20K user who sees a question vtced by a 10K user?
|
|
| May 2, 2014 at 19:40 | history | edited | Kermit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 56 characters in body
|
| May 2, 2014 at 19:34 | comment | added | Kevin B | I do too. I'm not entire sold on the tag requirement, as some of the tags are very inactive and difficult to get enough upvotes to be able to take advantage of this. | |
| May 2, 2014 at 19:33 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | I actually like this scheme. | |
| May 2, 2014 at 19:32 | comment | added | Kermit | @KevinB I should add that this moves away from the need to have specific badges or the question having a downvote | |
| May 2, 2014 at 19:32 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | @KevinB: Yes, this would allow two 20K users to close, which would have benefited this question. | |
| May 2, 2014 at 19:31 | comment | added | Kevin B | I think this is essentially what @RobertHarvey is suggesting anyway, it just explains what would happen behind the scenes (supported by this comment: meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/253324/#comment-13003) | |
| May 2, 2014 at 19:07 | comment | added | Kermit | Okay, since the word illustrative means nothing, I've updated the weights. | |
| May 2, 2014 at 19:06 | history | edited | Kermit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
people can't understand what illustrative means
|
| May 2, 2014 at 18:58 | comment | added | Kermit | @MartinSmith Because it was for illustrative purposes. I'm trying to see if we can get data on close votes and user reps behind them. | |
| May 2, 2014 at 18:43 | history | answered | Kermit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |