181–190 of 203 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That word: I don't think it means what you think it means.
Sorry, no grammar cop points for you. That was a correct usage of the word "irony."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First off, realize that I don't actually care about the FAQ or site rules at all. I care about getting value out of a site. That's true of everyone. Second, I asked a question, and I believe it was a good one. However, it was closed for being "too conversational," whatever that means. Instead of merely answering my question, the mods instead chose to make condescending comments, which eventually lead to an answer in…
> First off, realize that I don't actually care about the FAQ Has it ever occurred to you that you're a fool? You complain about the site and have no regard for the rules or what the site is. It's not your spam-filled phpBB site that you dump the same 'plzzz halllpp I can't get $_[get] when I make a post!!11' nonsense onto every day. > it was closed for being "too conversational," whatever that means I'm calling you…
There was / is a "closed as not constructive" - as well as getting the moderator's comment for closing the questioner could have had other comments from users pointing out that conversational questions are not welcome on SO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the messages are written in a tone that people generally find condescending, then they are condescending. The intent may be positive but doesn't change the impact of the writing style. As a matter of interest, do these template responses make it clear that they are indeed templates and not hand written?
They're not inserted as comments, but as a block of text that's offset from the rest of the post, so I think it's pretty clear that they're auto-inserted. You can search the site for "closed:1" to find questions with different messages that get inserted. http://stackoverflow.com/search?q=closed%3A1
They don't read as particularly condescending to me, but I imagine that if one was used in error or with questionable judgement it might well come off that way.
Is there any mechanism for quality control on how they are used?
I participate a lot , but almost exclusively in the (HTML5) Canvas tag. Because I don't answer much else I've got a smallish reputation for a frequent visitor(12K). I'm the top answer-er for the Canvas tag, having answered around ~10% of all questions ever asked about Canvas on StackOverflow. I would say that reputation numbers don't necessarily measure engagement per se in S.O. very well. I've found that if I answer…
http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/26491/matrix-rota...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not shirking responsibility for putting the responses there. I'm saying that they aren't condescending. The messages are to inform people why their question was closed and to help them improve it.
If the messages are written in a tone that people generally find condescending, then they are condescending. The intent may be positive but doesn't change the impact of the writing style. As a matter of interest, do these template responses make it clear that they are indeed templates and not hand written?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not inserted as comments, but as a block of text that's offset from the rest of the post, so I think it's pretty clear that they're auto-inserted. You can search the site for "closed:1" to find questions with different messages that get inserted. http://stackoverflow.com/search?q=closed%3A1
Fair enough - it does look obvious to me that those are automatic 'rubber stamps'. They don't read as particularly condescending to me, but I imagine that if one was used in error or with questionable judgement it might well come off that way. Is there any mechanism for quality control on how they are used?
Also, any closed question can be reopened by community vote whether it was closed by a moderator or by voting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You only need 50 reputation to comment anywhere on the site. That's only 5 upvotes on a good answer or 10 upvotes on questions. It's an extremely low bar to get over. Note: You can always comment on your own posts (questions or answers).
Well it is a barrier that has stopped me participating too. It is very easy to dismiss these when you, and all those around you, are beyond them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that the simple-question askers tend to be unconcerned with their acceptance rate.
overall you get a much larger percentage of your reputation from upvotes rather than having your answers accepted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First off, realize that I don't actually care about the FAQ or site rules at all. I care about getting value out of a site. That's true of everyone. Second, I asked a question, and I believe it was a good one. However, it was closed for being "too conversational," whatever that means. Instead of merely answering my question, the mods instead chose to make condescending comments, which eventually lead to an answer in…
> First off, realize that I don't actually care about the FAQ Has it ever occurred to you that you're a fool? You complain about the site and have no regard for the rules or what the site is. It's not your spam-filled phpBB site that you dump the same 'plzzz halllpp I can't get $_[get] when I make a post!!11' nonsense onto every day. > it was closed for being "too conversational," whatever that means I'm calling you…
Wow.
You complain about the site and have no regard for the rules or what the site is.
You have completely failed to understand what I wrote. SO mods, instead of working to form community and value, have become trigger-happy bureaucrats. The entire method by which mods operate is, in many cases, opposed to the stated goals of SO.
Link to your question.
I have zero intention of linking my online identities, and I don't care in the least whether or not you believe me.