20

I think most of the questions are fine and covered by existing close reasons and other moderation tools like protection for popular questions. There is one thing I'd like to enforce for pokemon-go in particular though - technical support questions from outside supported regions should be closed. The same reasons that apply to illegal/unreleased content does ...


18

Personally, if I may be so blunt, I think it is a very ungood idea, because we are then effectively creating a walled garden, where people have to pay admission to enter. There is no reason why people need to stick around after their questions get asked/answered. It's the internet! We have unlimited powers of account creation! Do we want people to stick ...


18

I said something pretty similar recently. This was one of my "top 3 most frequently seen not-nice comment types" Typing your question into Google is much, much faster than asking it here on Arqade. Everyone knows where Google is, and Arqade is tiny compared to it. It's safe to assume that they tried something before coming here. Instead of ...


17

The most common offender of the "-1 <insert reason>" comment I see is the "-1 because trivial/low effort/lmgtfy" comment. What does that comment tell the user? "You are such an idiot for not knowing how to find this immediately, but I know and I'm not telling you and instead downvoting you and telling you how much you suck!" Good job. Really charming. ...


15

No. Let me preface this by saying that I disagree with your edit. It's a complete re-write of the question and you used too much guesswork to fill in the blanks for my taste. I'm not saying small and medium-sized edits should not be done. They should, which is why we can. It's that to me (and presumably others), this particular question was unsalvagable ...


15

I think the closing->duplicate system is doing its job as intended. However, on the communication front, I feel it is lacking. One thing that always irked me when closing as duplicate was the wording of the auto-generated comment. "possible duplicate: [link]". It's impersonal and disenchanting, it focuses on the state of question itself, not the ...


13

No. One of the design goals of Stack Exchange is to put as little friction as possible in the answering process. Requiring people to ask questions before they can answer them is counterintuitive, counterproductive and goes against most network principles.


13

You've already alerted us to it and that's about all you need to worry about. Hopefully. I wish Slap On the Wrist Through Internet Protocol was a thing that existed.


11

Whilst Ashley's answer covers the requirements, I think it's worth knowing why this is the case in the first place. Here is my understanding of the reasoning behind the reputation barrier: The 'minimum rep' idea steams from Stack Exchange's paradigm of: "Ask questions, get answers, no chit-chat". The idea of Stack Overflow (and later, the entire Stack ...


11

If a post has very low quality (that you can't clearly understand what it means), it'll be downvoted and people will usually comment with the reason. If the post has acceptable yet still low quality, someone will likely edit it (here is a random example from today) and it'll likely be upvoted again. In order to avoid getting downvoted at all: On Questions:...


10

One thing to keep in mind is that we have our quality standards for a reason. Stack Exchange exists as a place to ask questions that are useful for the general public, and get answers which provide solutions to those questions. We prefer generalised questions that will have a use beyond an individual but there are some exceptions. Additionally, we are not a ...


9

If you feel like doing so, and can do so while not being a jerk about it, sure, go ahead. I don't however, think that this is incumbent on anyone, anymore than, say... explaining downvotes. If the fundamental purpose of our site is to help people who have questions get answers, the current system accomplishes that. When a dupe vote is cast, the user who ...


9

According to this Meta Stack Exchange post (hat tip to the user dly for linking to this in the comments), new users can post answers to their own questions after a waiting period of 8 hours. That post gives a number of reasons why, which I will briefly summarize as follows: Many new users mistake the Q&A format for a traditional forum, and try to write &...


8

I am really not sure what the problem is. They don't have to come back. It would be nice if they did come and clarify or what have you, but there is no requirement, and it doesn't hurt us any - downvote, vote to close, comment, and move on. The only one they are hurting by not coming and giving us the info they need is themselves - it really has no bearing ...


8

We already have a mechanism on the site for restricting users with less than 10 reputation from posting answers, called "protection". We use it solely for situations when there's a demonstrated need - a particular question that has attracted several answers from <10 reputation users that have been deleted. Users at 15000 reputation can also apply it ...


8

This is a solution looking for a problem. Inactive accounts are inactive and harmless, and if an account's only contribution is a negative one those are collected by the system automatically. I see no point in penalising accounts that don't meet arbitrary standards of activity over time.


8

There are lots of video gaming forums already. The world doesn't need yet another. Creating an Arqade-branded forum would be putting a massive amount of work into creating something that nobody needs. Or, put another way: standards http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png But what about just using chat? As a standard practice it wouldn't work. The ...


7

Downvotes don't happen because users are new. In fact, they don't happen because of user actions at all. They happen because a post has an issue or two, and need fixing. Can they fix them? Sure. Sometimes. Other times the post is too confusing or lacking in detail to fix by anyone other than the poster. Or perhaps the voter doesn't have time to fix it. ...


6

As far as discouraging users goes, I can see how trying to maintain a certain standard can be a bit daunting. Initially, yes the system can be seen as a bit blunt, but that's where we come in. By simply explaining that a question is unclear, or perhaps off-topic, or whatever reason the question doesn't meet our standards, it can help the user understand what ...


6

The way I look at it is that there's no perfect solution to this problem. If we just downvote without educating the user on how to find the answer themselves (or, for that matter, letting them know we expect them to do research before asking) then they may just keep asking "trivial" questions and receiving downvotes. Not only does this result in an increase ...


6

It feels like some of the comments I've posted on trivial questions is part of the reason you've brought this up, even though I feel I've been fairly polite. I know I'm not the only one you're looking at, mainly because I haven't used terminology like "-1 because", but I do feel it's important to share why I left those comments. We are not here to ...


6

Sometimes some people will just not grasp what you're asking them. Others don't want to and are just trolling. I'm pretty sure this one was one of the latter. Obviously we're here to provide assistance but if somebody is coming across as though they're not really here for an answer, and are just causing trouble then there isn't really anything we can do ...


5

I honestly think that chat rooms should be enough. It's very easy to get the reputation required to chat and it shouldn't be a problem getting trivial help in the chat. If one of the users has enough reputation, you could create gallery chat rooms, where only the two of you can talk. Alternatively, if the solution is quick and simple, you can just leave a ...


5

It's not that their descriptions need to be fleshed out some more; it's that we don't identify anything from pure memory. No amount of detail will change that. SE has experimented with a lot of different ways to put information in front of people, especially new users. The takeaway that we've seen is that users just don't read, and you can't make them. ...


5

No, there is no exception for answers to your own question when it comes to up- and downvotes; the only exception is the ability to post comments on them, because that is sometimes necessary to get a satisfactory answer. The accept vote is sort of like an 1.5 upvote (looking at reputation gained) and it will pin the answer to the top, giving it more ...


4

No. We don't create sites for the things SE doesn't take. That's essentially a dump site, and doomed to fail. Nobody will stick around there, and it just leads to a completely dead site.


4

Eh, there really isn't anything we can do. Particularly if they (as they often don't) didn't provide any sort of email address, or didn't check the box asking to receive email notifications of new answers or comments. Remember, to ask a question on Stack Exchange registration is not required. If they don't come back, they don't come back. Part of what makes ...


3

I was going to make this a comment, but it will get buried in the flood. (And, forgive me if this should be a separate question altogether . . .) I'll begin by praising the idea of improving our duplicate message. But, additionally, I think there's something to be said for welcoming new users across the board. This site is VERY trial and error based in ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible