Timeline for Can we please clear up the misunderstanding that deleting old highly upvoted posts causes reputation loss?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
39 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 10 at 7:00 | history | edited | Ryan MMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Minor grammatical polish
|
| Jan 18, 2021 at 12:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://blog.stackoverflow.com with https://blog.stackoverflow.com
|
|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 15:29 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:16 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Apr 18, 2015 at 1:50 | comment | added | Braiam | @TravisJ having the exact same thing said over 3 times is neither useful, nor advisable, nor allowed. Michael might have a little more trouble with this, but I have already flagged more than tens of answers I can recall, to the same question (obviously distributed), which were deleted, because they offered nothing new to the existing answers. | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 21:05 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/290370/can-we-please-clear-misunderstanding-that-deleting-old-highly-upvoted-posts-caus/290378#comment177644_290371
|
| Apr 17, 2015 at 7:19 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo corrected
|
| Apr 17, 2015 at 0:07 | comment | added | gnat | @TravisJ this is true only for unregistered, "outside" visitors. As for active site users - voters, flaggers, answerers - we just don't know; requests for statistics on their preferred sort order remain unanswered (1, 2) | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 18:47 | comment | added | Travis J | @MichaelT - Don't fight the natural flow of the system. It seems to be working rather well, and content with lower votes will be lower in the page, that is how it works. Good content bubbles up, bad content sinks down. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 18:46 | comment | added | Travis J | @MichaelT - Perhaps you should worry a little less about fully removing this content in general. In the answer does answer the question, then it is an answer. If it is literally only a link then it should more than likely be removed, as google is fairly good at finding links. If it contains a blurb and a link, then that is basically a low quality answer. It can be downvoted if you think it is not useful, and if enough people of the community think that way it will eventually be negative. Given enough time of being negative either higher reputation users will remove it or the author will. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 18:31 | comment | added | user289086 | @TravisJ This post is about a decline of duplicate answers. Another post about duplicates being declined. I've got a declined flag on this post that has the same content as this one and this. How should can we curate these duplicate posts so that I don't have to wade through three visible posts that are the same link to find the answer? | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 18:23 | comment | added | Travis J | @MichaelT - You don't have a pattern you have one example. All of those link only answers can be deleted. What I care about is people misconstruing your dictation here into deleting valuable content. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 18:10 | comment | added | user289086 | @TravisJ I don't care about the link only nature of the answers. I do care that there were five answers that were essentially identical. This added lots of noise to the answers in the question and makes it harder for users who find the site to wade through it. It makes Stack Overflow into more like the forums of old. This happens consistently even today - people posting an answer that says the same thing as a post from months or years before. If it gets an upvote, it becomes very difficult for the community to curate the quality and try to keep a good signal to noise ratio. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 18:03 | comment | added | user1228 | If I'm getting on average 20 rep/day from an answer from 2009, and that gets deleted today, that means a year from now I'm missing ... uh, 365 * 20 rep I'd have had if the answer remained. So, while you may retain rep gathered prior to that point, you still lose something. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 17:50 | comment | added | Travis J | @MichaelT - That is one, literally the only one example you have, and your answer seems to be that you need more power in order to not have a chat colluded mob take it down? The collusion from chat is of far greater damage than one post from 2008 with a few link only answers. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 14:51 | comment | added | user289086 | @bluefeet with this question (timeline link), someone found all the answers to be 'useful'. I doubt that is actually the case. It is unfortunate that this is done because it makes it that much harder to find the useful signal of upvotes and instead serves to lessen their value. I agree that useful things shouldn't be deleted, but as examples like the one I linked show it can be very hard to stand by "all upvotes show someone found it useful" or "upvotes indicate value" stance. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 11:59 | answer | added | George Stocker | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 11:47 | history | edited | nobody | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Apr 16, 2015 at 11:31 | history | reopened |
jscs gnat George Stocker |
||
| Apr 16, 2015 at 8:03 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
title changed to better fit question text, some wordsmithing
|
| Apr 16, 2015 at 6:57 | comment | added | gnat | @bluefeet upvotes don't always mean that, Atwood covered this very thoroughly in The Trouble With Popularity | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 4:17 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Apr 16, 2015 at 4:27 | |||||
| Apr 16, 2015 at 1:36 | history | closed |
πάντα ῥεῖ Travis J jonrsharpe Zero Piraeus elixenide |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 23:05 | answer | added | Shog9 | timeline score: 13 | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 22:33 | comment | added | Taryn | @MichaelT Upvotes mean that someone found the content helpful and we are very careful in deleting what potentially is valuable. Brad covers that in his answer, we tend to be a bit cautious when deleting content. But I can assure you that moderators do delete a far share of content based on a flag or not. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 22:18 | history | edited | user289086 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Audits are only generated from posts < 30 days.
|
| Apr 15, 2015 at 22:14 | comment | added | user289086 | @bluefeet aside, I've mentioned this before but upvotes are a very poor indication of 'helpful'. The culture of voting on Stack Overflow really doesn't seem to support that stance. It would be interesting to get Shog to pull data about how likely users are to up vote more than one post on questions that have some number of answers. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 22:01 | answer | added | Travis J | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 21:58 | answer | added | Brad LarsonMod | timeline score: 23 | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 21:55 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 16, 2015 at 1:36 | |||||
| Apr 15, 2015 at 21:53 | comment | added | user289086 | @bluefeet I am saying that telling us to gather a dozen down votes on a post and have the 20ks delete it will increase your work load because it will create a bad audit and cause some user to lose over 100 reputation. If the post meets some criteria for deletion (whatever that is), using the excuse of "I'm not going to remove someone's reputation" is misunderstanding how reputation is lost when a post is deleted. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 21:50 | comment | added | Taryn | @MichaelT So basically you want us to delete stuff when you've flagged it as duplicate content regardless of whether or not other users have found it helpful? | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 21:50 | comment | added | Travis J | @MichaelT - You are taking one narrow case and making a false conclusion in my opinion. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 21:48 | comment | added | user289086 | @bluefeet its an informative post that is too long to fit into a comment and too contrived to put into a self answered Q&A, but still needs one of those mandatory tags. The problem is that forcing us (the community) to down vote and delete posts that should be deleted because of duplicate content, or its a comment rather than an answer will ultimately create more work for you and a much worse experience for at least three users. Preserving duplicate or non-answers because of reputation is the very wrong answer because the way to preserve that rep is for you to delete it before we do. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 21:44 | comment | added | Taryn | What's the question or discussion here? I've read this a few times and I'm missing it. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 21:44 | comment | added | Travis J | Strongly disagree with this. You provide no reasoning aside from personal opinion of why the duplicate should be removed, if it even is a duplicate. There is a policy of "We do not delete good content" in place, and also there is a certain degree of duplication which is acceptable in order for users to better navigate content. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 21:43 | history | edited | user289086 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 737 characters in body
|
| Apr 15, 2015 at 21:34 | history | asked | user289086 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
