-11

Stack Overflow (SO) is probably the best website when it comes to programming. This is due to the very high-quality content it provides, maintained by the community, with strict but fair rules.

I've noticed that the rules aren't as strict on Arqade, and that's ok, for the most part. SO is different in many ways, its users are professionals: programmers (mostly) and many of their answers can be based on facts and references.

Arqade on the other hand, has gamers. Most of the users that post here play games as a hobby rather than a profession, and tend to put less effort into their questions and answers. As such, this places a greater strain on those of us that do care, us that participate in meta, maintain the site and curate the content.

According to What percent of users visit meta sites? only 2% of total SO users visit meta-SO. It is safe to assume Arqade doesn't differ that much. Therefore, when I speak of bad quality or users that don't care about quality I am not referring to those of us that regularly participate in meta and curate the site: meta users are more likely to know the rules and more likely that they post good content.

It doesn't have to be this way however. You have many tools at our disposal which you don't use to the same extent as on Stack Overflow:

  • Flagging
  • Deleting, and
  • Down-voting bad content.

On Stack Overflow for example, comments that offer nothing of value at all are regularly deleted, on Arqade this doesn't seem to be the case. Another example I've personally noticed is 'too broad' flags that are marked helpful, but no action seems to be taken on the question after this.

Users on Arqade are therefore more tolerant than they should to bad content (down-vote worthy, too broad, opinion-based etc.)

My question is twofold:

  • Are there ways we can use our existing tools to better curate the site?

and in the long term:

  • What can be done to attract users that are willing to create/maintain high quality content?

Update

Here are a few requested examples of content that should have been either locked or downvoted (or both) but aren't:

UPDATE 2

To include a bit more examples as requested in the comments:

I was wrong. Quality standards are actually much lower than I thought. Take for example first question mentioned: "Should I chase down Squishys in teamfights with Ahri?"

Note: Some of you probably have no idea about LoL so I will analyse it quite a bit.

10 champions are picked per game, one of which is named Ahri. Games last on average 45 minutes. A champion has kills/assists/deaths, levels, gold, items, etc. There are totally 120 different champions, each having 4 spells one of which is very strong (named R). There are walls and bushes on the map. Ahri can have 3 stacks in her R.

Champions have health, and a secondary resource for casting spells.

Time for math.

Each champion can have a relative distance to another so that gives us another 9+8+7...+1 = 45 variables.

Excluding things I did not mention (masteries, runes, summoner spells available) and things that cant be quantified (fight location relative to objects on map), and assuming distance is quantized (close, mid, far), assuming other variables being quantized (health: very low, low, medium etc), we get a very rough approximation of combinations (brace yourselves...):

1061 = 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

As a comparison there are about 1050 atoms on earth.

Whoever declined my flag doesn't consider this broad.

This demonstrates current situation and the community's attitude towards content quality. If needed I could provide more of those, just let me know in the comments below.

  • 9
    Uhm... Thank you for insulting many of us? I'm pretty sure everyone here wants to create a high quality site. And actively works on keeping quality high. I'm curious how you see arqade as a dump with a couple diamonds in it, and see SO as a blazing beacon of perfect. SO contains piles and piles of utter crap. And that's about as much as you'll get from me. I'm going to go sit in a corner and produce more bad comments and low quality content. – Arperum Jun 28 '15 at 21:54
  • 4
    Can you give concrete examples of how we aren't doing that now? If this is due to the "Minecraft problem", rest assured that that is something we are working on. As this is, this strikes me as more of a rant, and less of a constructive pointer towards ways we are failing (and perhaps also, ways we can improve). – Ash Jun 28 '15 at 21:54
  • 1
    @Arperum How come you feel insulted? What makes you think I was talking about you when talking about bad content? Do you post bad content? If not, why feel offended? – Fermi paradox Jun 28 '15 at 21:55
  • @AshleyNunn Oh sure I can. Here is an example of a helpful flagged on a clearly broad post that doesn't get locked. As for how you treat flags on "thank you"-type comments, I m pretty sure you dont need any examples. – Fermi paradox Jun 28 '15 at 21:58
  • @AshleyNunn Also, its not a rant. I didnt include any of my personal experience on how you treat those that dare to request a correct answer in a polite manner. – Fermi paradox Jun 28 '15 at 22:00
  • 2
    "Assuming you willing to create a high quality site (which many of you aren't)" That is implying that we're lazy and don't care. It's clearly insulting to us. – MBraedley Jun 28 '15 at 22:01
  • The post you linked has 4 too broad votes. So you're going to have to do better than that. – Unionhawk Jun 28 '15 at 22:01
  • @MBraedley "many" does not mean "most", so why do you feel insulted? Is it not true? However, let me mask it a bit. I ll edit in a moment. – Fermi paradox Jun 28 '15 at 22:02
  • 4
    I feel offended that you are bluntly attacking "many of us". I am part of "us" and even if I know my produced content is good, I also know "many of us" produce pretty damn good content. You are also making wild assumptions about the age and knowledge of most of our users. – Arperum Jun 28 '15 at 22:03
  • 4
    You clearly don't know your audience. You are talking to the people who read meta posts. These are the people who do care, and you're saying the opposite of us. Even if you were talking about every return user, you'd still be wrong. – MBraedley Jun 28 '15 at 22:05
  • 4
    @user5061 because you are implying that we, the users who do care, are not doing anything about said bad content. – Unionhawk Jun 28 '15 at 22:09
  • 1
    @user5061 Fine. That we aren't doing enough to stop bad content. Well, as far as I can tell, you are wrong, so if you're going to sit here and say "I don't need to give examples" then I don't think we're going to get anywhere. – Unionhawk Jun 28 '15 at 22:13
  • 6
    RE your listed examples in the update: I, personally, have not closed or downloaded any of those because my understanding of LoL (and MOBAs in general) is so limited that I cannot in good conscience bring myself to close any but the most egregiously close worthy questions on those games. And things that I would normally consider opinion based or overly broad tend to be completely answerable questions about the competitive metagame. So I steer away from them, opting to hit 'skip' in the review queue whenever those games come up. – Trent Hawkins Jun 28 '15 at 23:12
  • 2
    You're overcomplicating the math by an incredible degree. Most likely in an attempt to reinforce your point. I'd recommend explaining where that came from. Either way, though, your opinion's been overruled. – Frank Jul 3 '15 at 19:54
  • 1
    Okay. Ignore advice to try to help you strengthen your point. Continue to act as if you're right and alienate yourself from the rest of the community. Because that's worked so well so far. – Frank Jul 4 '15 at 0:41
3

Thank you for bringing this problem to our attention. We appreciate that you disagree with how many users have voted on some things. I agree that this site's quality would improve hundredfold if one person decided which answers would be upvoted and downvoted. A benevolent dictatorship, if you will.

But, that's not how Stack Exchange works, now is it? You cannot control how other users vote, no matter how hard you meta.

I actually find it hilarious that you bring up StackOverflow as your shining example that all Stack Exchange sites should be more like. (I will address ElitistJerks in a second) StackOverflow does a lot to remove low quality content, sure, but there is a sheer volume of content that comes into StackOverflow, that the review queues regularly have multitudes of posts awaiting review. Around here, the queues are regularly empty. They are more strict about things therefore, because they would be literally buried in a mountain of bad content otherwise.

There are also more users who specialize in a multitude of different programming areas, whereas I, for one, am not comfortable voting either way on a League of Legends answer simply because I don't know the game. Nor would I even bother to look at said League of Legends answer, because I have no reason to read it.

Non-answers are deleted all the time. I regularly see them in the review queues, and recommend their deletion. Incorrect answers are a more complicated matter altogether. In general a flag against an incorrect answer that is still an answer will be declined or disputed (depending on the flag handler). Incorrect accepted answers have been deleted in the past, but it's atypical as far as I know. And, as far as I know, the same is the case on SO.

Now onto your bright and shining example of what every Gaming community should look like: ElitistJerks. First and foremost, the name really does say it all here; banning users for spelling mistakes would be extremely counterproductive. This site has an edit function, after all. If you see a typo, you have the power to fix it. But, that's not the main reason that us becoming that won't work. StackExchange is a question and answer site. As such, huge guides don't really work that well. Not only would a comprehensive strategy guide for everything require only self-answers, it would border on too broad every single time. They do not work very well for our format here.

So, to recap, thank you for bringing this problem to our attention. Rest assured, the userbase does care about quality content, and looks to improve it continuously, however, holding our site to the standards of completely different internet communities isn't really constructive. Every internet community is different. Even within StackExchange, there are differences in standards based on the needs of the community.

  • 1
    Interesting read. I really want to know how other readers would react to you being sarcastic and making fun of me. Let's get it straight then. ElitistJerks was mentioned as an example of a strict site with good contented. How on earth did you conclude that I meant Arqade has to follow specifically its rules, is beyond me. Also, do you somewhere answer my question? Cause I surely must have missed it. – Fermi paradox Jun 28 '15 at 22:53
  • And there! The your sarcasm and your lack of respect gets an upvote. :) I wonder.. why would someone encourage your behavior? – Fermi paradox Jun 28 '15 at 23:00
  • 5
    @user5061 If you want to discuss lack of respect, I would probably start with the 400-rep, 2-month-old user who came to meta claiming people here aren't interested in generating quality content. Your entire question is extremely tone-deaf and doesn't even seem to be an accurate reflection of the situation at Arqade. Perhaps you might have better luck if you learn something about the community you're criticizing, instead of just suggesting they adopt the ElitistJerks model (which is a controversial site itself). – Chris Hayes Jun 29 '15 at 0:18
  • 2
    @ChrisHayes - whilst I appreciate you're frustrated and agree with the general point that the OP shouldn't be so quick to judge us, we should not be judging nor jumping to conclusions about the OP. I think it's relevant to point out that we try not to discriminate based on rep points - anyone with >10 rep is welcome to have their voices heard on meta, even if the community at large disagrees with that point or the way it's presented. tl;dr argue against the point, not the person – Robotnik Jun 29 '15 at 2:56
  • @ChrisHayes As if rep is an indication of a correct or wrong opinion. What a terrible argument. Also, kind of ironic that you got 470 rep. Do I need 60 more to be entitled to an opinion? ElitistJerks is mentioned as an example of a strict website with awesome content, not as model we should copy. – Fermi paradox Jun 29 '15 at 8:37
  • @Robotnik You are the only person that defended me. So reading "OP shouldn't be so quick to judge us" made me realize what the source of the problem is. I edited my question accordingly and hopefully now it is more clear on who I accuse of creating bad quality (apparently not meta users) and who I criticise for not having high enough standards of quality. – Fermi paradox Jun 29 '15 at 9:35
  • @user5061 - I was merely pointing out that Chris shouldn't have gotten upset with your reaction, so it wasn't a 'defense' of you per se, more of a "break it up you two!" :P however I'm glad that you took what I said on board. I also held back quite a bit when editing your question so as not to change the meaning - following your edit I believe I see the point you're trying to make however it's still hidden with some negative connotations - if you'd like I could take a crack at rephrasing your question to be more positive? – Robotnik Jun 29 '15 at 12:24
  • @Robotnik Please create a room so that we can discuss what needs fixing in my question. – Fermi paradox Jun 29 '15 at 12:31
  • @user5061 - I was just going to remove some of the negative/condescending connotations, stuff like "oh poor user got a down-vote, there there.. have an up-vote", change some wording of 'you' to 'we' so it's more inclusive, like "What can we do", "We don't do this" etc integrate the 'edit' part into the body proper, and provide a conclusion paragraph. If you give me 30 mins or so I'll make the changes and link them to you in a room so you can then review and post yourself? – Robotnik Jun 29 '15 at 12:41
  • @Robotnik Sure. – Fermi paradox Jun 29 '15 at 12:53
  • @user5061 - I have made this chat room however I can't seem to add you to it, thus I've made it public so you can join – Robotnik Jun 29 '15 at 13:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .