Timeline for How to tackle the gray area in reviewing low-quality answers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 8, 2019 at 16:16 | answer | added | Braiam | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 8, 2019 at 11:20 | history | edited | fra-san | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Minor changes
|
| Jun 28, 2019 at 19:11 | comment | added | fra-san | @roaima This is a good point, especially if we consider that downvoting is suggested by the guidelines for reviewing. But I see that (down)voting in the LQP queue has been status-declined. Also, that queue seems not to be designed to make it easy to engage with poor but salvageable posts (unfortunately, IMO). | |
| Jun 28, 2019 at 15:54 | comment | added | Chris Davies | LQP doesn't offer the option to downvote. Could this be added? To do this rather than vote to delete requires me to open the Q/A in a new window and downvote it there - possibly with a comment - before returning to the original review queue. Where it's a wrong answer but "plausible" I would prefer to downvote/comment than delete | |
| Jun 27, 2019 at 7:17 | answer | added | Dmitry Grigoryev | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jun 26, 2019 at 22:37 | comment | added | fra-san | @sourcejedi I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention. I see your point about "principles" VS "guidelines" and I edited my question. | |
| Jun 26, 2019 at 22:36 | history | edited | fra-san | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
"principles" is too close to "rules"; "guidelines" is aligned to the common practice on meta sites
|
| Jun 26, 2019 at 21:43 | history | edited | slmMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Jun 26, 2019 at 21:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackUnix/status/1143987423191478272 | ||
| Jun 26, 2019 at 20:45 | comment | added | sourcejedi | You called me out, I guess I am being too nit-picky about the phrase specifically :-). But, the "guidelines" you linked to look like they are "just" a community post on the main StackExchange Meta. Maybe you could steal that word, i.e. "guidelines for our site". IMO "guidelines" sometimes has that connotation, that not everyone is forced to follow them. | |
| Jun 26, 2019 at 20:05 | comment | added | fra-san | @sourcejedi In my opinion the proposal in that Q/A makes a good point: let reviewers classify posts instead of deciding what to do with them. Though it seems to take a different perspective than that of my question, focusing on how the LQPQ can be made less confusing given that only answers that are not functionally answers should be deleted. About my phrasing: surely it can be improved, I'm open to suggestions (especially considering that I'm not a native English speaker and nuances may be important here). | |
| Jun 26, 2019 at 12:50 | comment | added | sourcejedi | "Common principles for the site" might not be quite the right phrase. I.e. at best it would gather consensus among the reviewers (and flaggers, for the manually-flagged posts in LQP) who look in Meta, but there will still be some users who do not agree, and not very tight enforcement of it. | |
| Jun 26, 2019 at 12:47 | comment | added | sourcejedi | I think Manishearth had a point. I.e. the LQP review system as it exists, nudges some people towards deleting low-quality posts that are nevertheless technically answers. (Clue in the name :-). I don't want to have too high expectations of (re-)discussing this in Meta. Maybe U&L is smaller enough, that reviewers & flaggers can smooth off some more sharp edges than SO does. (Or choose to file the edges sharper, if that is the consensus :-). | |
| Jun 25, 2019 at 17:44 | history | asked | fra-san | CC BY-SA 4.0 |