Timeline for How do we improve the signal to noise ratio?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 2014 at 22:38 | comment | added | Mark Pond | What is the appropriate response when a question has received multiple answers which are technically correct but those answers are of very low quality and are unlikely to increase the understanding of the individual who asked the question (or future readers)? I hesitate to down-vote an accurate, minimalist, answer but I rarely see the minimalist drive-by-shooting style answers improved later. It seems that my hesitation stems from voting up/down "correct" vs "quality" answers. | |
| Apr 23, 2014 at 11:21 | vote | accept | Matt and Neil | ||
| Feb 25, 2014 at 18:00 | comment | added | ca_peterson | @BobBuzzard I meant that over the long haul, certainly not an immediate expectation. In other words: users will either adapt to the stackexchange format and try and make their questions more generic, or they won't and they'll keep getting flagged and downvoted until they get discouraged. I'm certainly not proposing we chase them off the site with pitchforks and torches on their first question not being perfect. | |
| Feb 25, 2014 at 9:16 | comment | added | Bob Buzzard | I'm rather uncomfortable with the statement "those who want to continue to participate will quickly realize that they'll need to post questions much more like what they see theirs being edited into". This smacks that we only want people who think exactly like the experienced users of this site. | |
| Feb 25, 2014 at 5:05 | comment | added | Matt Lacey Mod | +1 on the editing... Comments are used way too much for things that should be edits or even answers. | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 19:39 | comment | added | Samuel De Rycke | I agree. Maybe in the hopes of gaining more and more members, we've gone soft on the aspects that make the stackexchange format great. | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 19:16 | comment | added | Matt and Neil | Nice insight. Ultimately we want all members (new and old) to "own" the quality of the site's content. I suppose a long and bumpy road :-) | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 18:52 | history | answered | ca_peterson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |