231–240 of 427 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think stack exchange’s moderators killed that site. Common complaints were how antagonistic they were toward new users. Hard to grow or sustain a user base if you turn out all the new ones.
Yeah it's a really big problem with StackOverflow. The mods are all crazy. I can't find it now but the StackOverflow Devs proposed actually fixing (or at least improving) question closing by allowing the asker to reopen their question once. I can't remember the exact details, but it sounded like a good first step. Downvoted to hell by the existing mods of course. They're a bit screwed because they rely so much on vol…
And the community is tired of people asking for help with their homework or doing very little effort themselves before asking. Why do these people deserve others spending their time helping them if they can't even bother to search or formulate something coherent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google prefers pages with lots of content And that’s how Google search will be overtaken by GPT with ease. People want answers, not an ad-driven algorithm’s desire for content that is long enough to support more ads.
Exactly this. I was recently involved in a decision of whether or not to make a nascent community SEO-friendly, which meant significant changes to the UI and reduced UX. In the end the conclusion was "f... SEO, let's build something good instead and have users come back because of that".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only can they ignore such users, they have to.
And yet here I am, the annoying fly in the ointment of your hypothesis, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm I was going to say something about Stallman-like fanaticism, but then I remembered Stallman proved to be mostly right...
Richard is most concerned about injustices toward people that take away their freedoms. I am most concerned about the security of people and how software makes them insecure in order to profit from, or abuse them. These are proximate but different. It is a bit worrying that both freedom and security are thought 'fanatical' by some.
Because those are your grandpa's and your dad's causes, respectively. The operative word for this generation is "consent."
Manipulate someone into giving Consent and you can do whatever the hell you want to them. They asked for and agreed to the abuse!
It all starts with clicking "I accept."
My skin crawls anytime I see someone bring it up; it's a red flag that someone is trying to apply BDSM protocol negotiation to an otherwise-simple interaction. Attorneys do this shit too. People only ever do it at all when they're trying to rewrite the rules in their favor.
If your core business product is content contributed by users... I'm turning to the opinion that you need a C-level ombudsman- / dean of contributors-type role. Whose sole job it is to (1) figure out what contributors are thinking and want & (2) advocate for them inside the company. Every contributor-driven platform has eventually jumped the shark, and all in exactly the same way. Management begins to take contributi…
> Every contributor-driven platform has eventually jumped the shark, and all in exactly the same way. Do you think Wikipedia has jumped the shark? Obviously not perfect, but it's certainly a lot better than Quora in terms of accuracy. It's been around for a very long time and it doesn't seem to me like quality has decreased. Edit: to be clear and re-iterate, I never said Wikipedia was perfect, just that it has a cert…
So now you have this bizarro world where English language pages on Portuguese politicians have corruption scandals but Portuguese language do not.
If your core business product is content contributed by users... I'm turning to the opinion that you need a C-level ombudsman- / dean of contributors-type role. Whose sole job it is to (1) figure out what contributors are thinking and want & (2) advocate for them inside the company. Every contributor-driven platform has eventually jumped the shark, and all in exactly the same way. Management begins to take contributi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that PR companies can push out whatever they want, where as an ordinary individual with personal knowledge of a topic, can't. It means many Wiki articles on person or companies, are often glorified advertisements, rather than encyclopedic entries.
A blog post can be sufficient reference. The point is that Wikipedia isn't original research. You updating the page on the basis of personal knowledge isn't the way it is supposed to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Product of middle managers, the cause of nearly all corporate problems.
Can't see a something like "show answers to related questions directly under a single answer to the intended question" being a middle-manager decision.