2 replaced http://electronics.stackexchange.com/ with https://electronics.stackexchange.com/
source | link

Because no meta answer longer than a page can avoid a personal ancedote, I will give this one: Integrated Circuit SizeIntegrated Circuit Size. I saw that question, along with the characteristic comment about how it was impossible to figure out, and I took that as a challenge. Did I see close votes when I started writing? I sure did, and I continued anyways. Did I recognize the absurdity of the problem in the question? I sure did, and I continued anyways. And guess what... I enjoyed writing that answer. At it's core, there is a reasonable question - even if it isn't the question asked. I would probably reword it to something like "How do I calculate die area when pad limited".

Because no meta answer longer than a page can avoid a personal ancedote, I will give this one: Integrated Circuit Size. I saw that question, along with the characteristic comment about how it was impossible to figure out, and I took that as a challenge. Did I see close votes when I started writing? I sure did, and I continued anyways. Did I recognize the absurdity of the problem in the question? I sure did, and I continued anyways. And guess what... I enjoyed writing that answer. At it's core, there is a reasonable question - even if it isn't the question asked. I would probably reword it to something like "How do I calculate die area when pad limited".

Because no meta answer longer than a page can avoid a personal ancedote, I will give this one: Integrated Circuit Size. I saw that question, along with the characteristic comment about how it was impossible to figure out, and I took that as a challenge. Did I see close votes when I started writing? I sure did, and I continued anyways. Did I recognize the absurdity of the problem in the question? I sure did, and I continued anyways. And guess what... I enjoyed writing that answer. At it's core, there is a reasonable question - even if it isn't the question asked. I would probably reword it to something like "How do I calculate die area when pad limited".

1
source | link

I appreciate your concern. Let me start off with a few statements that come from fancy graphs that I have access to:

  • Over the last year, our question volume has roughly doubled.
  • New review queues were implemented around November 2012, which corresponds to a (roughly) month-long spike in question closures without a matching increase in question volume.
    • This allowed any question with close votes to be seen by anyone looking at the review queue instead of disappearing, making questions easier to close.
    • Close vote aging rules also changed so that they wouldn't age unless the question had over 100 views - also making questions easier to close.
    • Question volume increased mid-January, and the number of closed questions scaled with that increase

Eyeballing the graphs, I'll divide the timeline into three segments - before November 2012, November 2012, and after November 2012.

  • Before November 2012, roughly 13% of all questions got closed
  • During November 2012, over 25% of questions got closed (1)
  • After November 2012, 16% - 19% of questions get closed

It's hard to conclusively say what's going on because I believe that the changes to the close system in November created a huge queue of questions with close votes to be reviewed. I would argue that the review queues and previous close vote changes have improved the question quality as fewer "marginal" questions fall through the cracks. In terms of absolute number of closed questions, yes that number has increased considerably - but it has matched the rise in question volume. It remains to be seen how the latest (06/25/13) close vote changes affect the system. Personally, I am very excited to see these changes as I think it will make it more obvious what "closing" means to our community.

This site is growing, and part of my job (everyone's job, really) is to make sure it keeps growing. Again, while the volume of closed questions grows, it's not growing without a corresponding rise in the volume of questions. To me, this means that the site "is not getting worse". I'm not trying to be dismissive of your complaint, but I don't see it in the numbers.


There are a few changes to the close system that recently went into effect. I think they will improve the "crap question" situation in two ways. First, they may remove inhibitions to close poor questions since the terminology has changed ([on-hold] instead of [closed]). Second, they do a better job of explaining why the question was closed in the first place, hopefully reducing the need to explain why a question was closed. In terms of moderator policy, I don't think having one closed question is enough for moderator intervention, but we do get notified after multiple consecutive closed questions, and I have been acting on those lately. I know you want a zero-tolerance policy, but I'm not willing to go there on mediocre questions. (Actual spam, vulgarity, etc.. are a different matter) I would appreciate it if you would give feedback after you've had a week or two to see the new dynamics.


I think something else that has been frustrating you lately is when people give good answers to poor questions. I see you coming from the angle of "Show solidarity against the morons - give them NOTHING". I understand where you're coming from, but if a "bad" question gets "good" answers, then surely it isn't that bad. Also, if people are deriving a benefit/enjoyment from answering questions, even bad questions, do you think they should be stopped? Separate the issue of "bad content" and "bad people". If people are continuously adding bad content, then I would rather the moderators do the "discouragement" instead of users. I think further discussion on this part of your question should actually be a separate, more focused question (or two).

In general, when people write good answers to questions that are on the way to being closed, they need to be aware that ultimately, closed questions get deleted. If I were to write a nice long answer to a (soon to be) closed question, I would look and see how I could tweak the question so that it would be acceptable. I would do this because it preserves my content, and because it preserves my reputation gained from that content - purely for self-serving reasons. There is a potential issue regarding questions that are too vague, in that early answers may be making invalid assumptions. This is again better split off and asked in a separate, more focused question.


Because no meta answer longer than a page can avoid a personal ancedote, I will give this one: Integrated Circuit Size. I saw that question, along with the characteristic comment about how it was impossible to figure out, and I took that as a challenge. Did I see close votes when I started writing? I sure did, and I continued anyways. Did I recognize the absurdity of the problem in the question? I sure did, and I continued anyways. And guess what... I enjoyed writing that answer. At it's core, there is a reasonable question - even if it isn't the question asked. I would probably reword it to something like "How do I calculate die area when pad limited".

I hope this perhaps starts a more focused dialogue, and also that I haven't said anything particularly stupid / in need of more proofreading. (2)


(1) Technically, these percentages are the number of newly closed questions divided by the number of newly asked questions, not the number of questions asked in that period that got closed. Normally, there shouldn't be a significant difference between the two, but I interpret this spike in November due to clearing out a backlog of questions that needed to be closed.

(2) OK, I didn't really proofread it that much after it got over a page. Don't expect a page-long question to get a quick, short answer.