-3
\$\begingroup\$

This website, evaluates question only on the basis-of public-votes, where the asker do-not have any right to put any evaluation to own question. But there is need for judging the question also from the viewpoint of the asker's own.

The site requires downvotes, or mark for deletion etc. to distinguish 2 type of question ( type-1: some-of the questions are basic. They adds up the knowledge to future. And type-2 : that do-not adds-up significant-knowledge to the future. (Since this is a publicly-edited site, all-sorts of questions indeed come).

Now, these 2 (or actually many-more) -type of questions. It is as-if assumed, that, if a question attract more votes from other-user, it is useful. And if they accumulates some downvote ... then it is assumed that, the question has no importance for the future, and become prone to deletion.

But that is not the practical truth. In many-cases (though not all-cases), as an asker, I (i.e. creator of the question), feel some future-importance of the question, but since such- judgement is a subjective-process (same thing felt as different, by different-persons) ; often a good question is mis-rated by other users. Later-on, on further manually-correspondence and discussion, the rating get up-rides in a drastic rate, or sometimes get deleted before they reach to right person.

How it could be resolved?

No I'm not telling to stop downvote or deletion-system. but I'm telling to change the criteria for deletion.

The asker could define the type or quality of the question, by selecting some options/ categories/ form-fields.

(Since, On a problem/ question, only the asker (the creator) can tell the best.)

This will Not add-up a vote to the question, but will help the judges to better-understand the question, on the basis of asker's evaluations, and also will help to automatically (programically) slow-down the deletion.

Obviously in case of severe misrate by the asker/ vandalism ; moderators could re-evaluate the question.

EXAMPLES:

(These are just some examples. they could be further)

Ask Categories

Thus the website can ask categorie/ quality of the question, from the user; that would help a lot in sorting-work. ( Also, The website could warn the users to not-to-post homework-style question, or make sure it is a conceptual or rare (unavailable on web) question)

Also, the website should ask the user about what should be the fate of this question, in another form-field. (Also If it is a transient-requirement question, website could warn user. The website could warn the asker to ask such question in the chat-section).

Ask Fate

These will improve question-evaluation, will help to save proper-question to future for the right-person, and to reduce stack-overloads (bad-questions)by preventing (instead curing) programically, on basis of evaluation of

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Excessive use of bold type is like crying wolf too often, and makes your post annoying to read. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Jul 6 '16 at 11:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ @OlinLathrop, I strongly agree with you, the bold and weird display text makes the post unpleasant to read. However, the OP may not be skilled at writing English. So I think we need to cut them some slack. \$\endgroup\$ – gbulmer Jul 6 '16 at 13:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ @gbulmer Even if OP is not a native speaker, he must have spent quite some time reading English literature to reach the level he is currently at, and should have picked up the fact that no professionally written text has random bolded words. As a non-native myself, I give a lot of slack, but random bold text for emphasis is just silly. \$\endgroup\$ – pipe Jul 6 '16 at 14:02
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @pipe - I have read literature which actively uses type effects. You may be too young to remember, but in the late '80's and early '90's, with the widespread availability of laser printers, people loved type effects. So maybe I can read through it more easily. Please do not misunderstand, I do not condone the overuse of mixed fonts, bold, capitalisation, emoji's, or other type effects. The question seems to have more profound issues than using random bold. \$\endgroup\$ – gbulmer Jul 6 '16 at 14:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ The bolds in THIS question ; are highlights to make more easily readable. They does-not used here to indicate any "shouting". I'm prone to to use (and l feel easy to read) the texts using high-amount of punctuation-marks, brackets, boldings, color-fonts, capital-letters; etc to find the proper meaning. Whereas a book full of plain-text make reading painful, and then I need read each-sentence 5 or 10-times. I know many people (eg some teachers) dislike this, and I try avoid them as-much as I can, but use few, otherwise txt become too-unsatisfactory to me. \$\endgroup\$ – Always Confused Jul 6 '16 at 18:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ Also, I'm non-native to English. However, does the textbooks of university-level belongs to professional-text? I saw many university-level textbook uses bold highlighted fonts, and they are better-readable. \$\endgroup\$ – Always Confused Jul 6 '16 at 19:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ Some replied, this post was unclear. But which-parts are unclear? I've wrote very-much pointwise, with hilights used. I've avoided use of any metaphoric statements, and all the sentences are small to moderate in size, and seems to me as clear in their meaning, as-well the whole post seems to me contain a single, clear-cut meaning . so, where it is "unclear" ? let me know plz \$\endgroup\$ – Always Confused Jul 7 '16 at 12:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ I've posted a more-simplifed version, with boldings removed. \$\endgroup\$ – Always Confused Jul 7 '16 at 14:17
3
\$\begingroup\$

Your question reads as if you have misunderstood the purpose of the electronics.stackexchange site. Please go and read its help centre, and check that this question makes sense in the context of electronics.stackexchange.

Anyone posting a question must understand the scope and purpose of the site, and accept that their question may get downvoted, closed or even deleted if it is not a good fit.

The community does not require anything more from a question than it fit the purpose of the site, and be clear enough to answer.

The community doesn't usually need to understand the motivation of the person who asks a question. The question needs to stand on its own merits. Why should we care why it is asked if it is a good question which people feel is worth answering?

As Olin has explained, some of the 'fates' make no sense. Giving the ability to mark questions as 'almost immediately deletable' is pointless because we don't want those questions. It would be better to have a 'Do not post, delete immediately' button next to the 'Post Your Question', and likely less web development work.

Also, who would be struggling with a problem, post a question, and mark it in anyway that might reduce the chances of getting a good answer? I find that very hard to imagine. So some of the categories make no sense. There might be an argument for using a homework tag. IMHO the others are purely confusing, and detract from the existing system's simplicity and elegance.

Also, who is better at categorising a question? The person who is stuck and doesn't understand how to answer it, or the people who propose answers, and feel knowledgable enough to vote and hence identify better or worse answers? It seems to me that the person asking the question may be the least qualified to make any value judgements.

Finally, you identified in a few of your comments questions which were downvoted then upvoted. E.g. What is the function of "Picture tube charger"? and How CRT allows use of ligh-guns or pens etc?

It may have taken a few hours, but the results seems to have worked out fine.

That demonstrates that the existing system, without any changes works. Further, there is no reason to believe that accurate use of your categorisations by the person asking the question would have had any effect on the community answering it, or that your categorisations might have lead to a better outcome.

Finally, it is extra development work, which, IMHO, at best makes an existing simple and effective process more complex. So you need some evidence that their is a problem to address.

Your proposal appears to either cater for types of questions we do not want, or it saves no effort for people answering questions, and it asks for a value judgement from people asking questions, when by definition they don't understand the answer.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks very much for taking care. It was just a suggestion, completely opinion-based, and obviously is a matter of consensus. Thanks for another very important reply ... ongoing-process is a "simple and effective process". Simple things always have some good outcomes. \$\endgroup\$ – Always Confused Jul 6 '16 at 18:56
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Thank you for responding. I wanted to use a metaphor about allowing politicians to run referendums (i.e. ask questions), where they choose what the answers mean (the categories). But I'm a Brit, so it hurt too much. Please don't assume the existing system can't be improved. However, I think you'll need some evidence; also simplicity, and some benefit to both the questioner and answerers now, and future users. \$\endgroup\$ – gbulmer Jul 6 '16 at 20:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ marked this comment as useful because-of the pharase "Please don't assume the existing system can't be improved". But rest part of this comment is unclear. \$\endgroup\$ – Always Confused Jul 7 '16 at 12:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ Part of my point is, a proposal to improve the mechanisms on this site need to have more than of theoretical benefit. So for example, having downvotes is useful, and in a perfect world would always be helpful. However in our world, it could be abused, or misused. Hence having a small cost for a downvote helps; their is some cost and hence value in the downvote. It has been debated that every downvote should carry an explanation. However, there are arguments which say we have a comment system anyway, and making a downvote (which has a cost) easy is a good thing. MarkU's post helps explain too \$\endgroup\$ – gbulmer Jul 7 '16 at 12:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ I did not meant to reject the downvoting system. I meant, there should be an additional, separate -evaluation method where the asker would be able to put some qualitative-evaluation to own-question. \$\endgroup\$ – Always Confused Jul 7 '16 at 13:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ I understand. I was only using the downvoting system to try to illustrate the difference between a good idea (in a perfect world), and a good implementation of that idea in our real world. IMHO the idea of your categorisation of questions by the questioner would only work in a perfect world. It needs to strike a balance. An improvement should have some practical benefit to the questioner to make it worthwhile being truthful and accurate, benefit to people answering, benefit to people with similar problems in the future, and maybe some cost if the questioner lies. And it needs to be simple. \$\endgroup\$ – gbulmer Jul 7 '16 at 13:25
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ For me, key properties of any improvements are they need to require less human effort to monitor or police it, and should benefit everyone now, and into the future (without a large development cost, though that isn't my problem). It should be fair, rationale, not open to abuse, not require perfect people to act perfectly all the time, and have predictable, preferably transparent, inputs and results. It should be flexible enough to allow for people to find more uses for the question and answer well after the answers were written. \$\endgroup\$ – gbulmer Jul 7 '16 at 13:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes I proposed such system that programically could prevent posting of homework-style questions etc. With much less need of manual and subjective operations \$\endgroup\$ – Always Confused Jul 7 '16 at 14:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ As I wrote, it is inconceivable to me that anyone would mark their question in any way that would reduce the chances of it being answered. So that whole part of your proposal seemed 'still born' to me. Further we had a homework tag, that would have provided most of the benefit, and that isn'rt used, so two strikes against that idea. As I have written, it needs to be simple, workable, fair, rationale, and not rely on perfect people. \$\endgroup\$ – gbulmer Jul 7 '16 at 14:55
3
\$\begingroup\$

I'm not sure I quite understand the site problems you're trying to address. There is already a tag system for sorting questions, is popular with homework questions. Both and are already established.

when someone-else (other-than creator of the question); go-to evaluate the question, frequently there occur misjudgment....

That's why the help/dont-ask part of the help center recommends to avoid asking subjective questions. Chat is different because of the more immediate feedback, but QA is more narrowly focused on building objectively useful questions and answers.

Was there a specific example of a question that got misinterpreted?

website should ask the user about what should be the fate of this question

"For future use" describes everything that belongs on the main Q/A site. This is the type of content we want to attract.

"Indefinite discussion" belongs on the chat. This is exactly the kind of content we do not want on the main Q/A site, per help/tour/what questions can I ask here.

and questions are either going to be low-quality posts that never receive an official answer (not including comments), or else the question is sufficiently high quality that it becomes generally useful and worth keeping. The person asking the troubleshooting only wants to solve their immediate problem, they might not care whether the question is read by future users. But often a specific, detailed objective question is more likely to be answered, than a vague general question.

Some troubleshooting questions have received a lot of upvotes: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/troubleshooting?sort=votes&pageSize=50

At the other extreme there are often breadboard/arduino questions where a photograph shows that the solderless breadboard was used incorrectly, bypass capacitors were not used, or some similar construction error. This type of question usually does not hang around very long. Someone who has not developed good electronics construction technique, will not know how to search either. Usually someone answers and shortly the question is withdrawn. This QA site is not a substitute for a good tutorial or a live mentor.

There is already I think a bot that sweeps up old, low-quality posts. A question that has either upvotes or upvoted answers is kept for future use. So transient-requirement posts are generally not much of a problem. However, it's always worth examining whether the existing systems could be adjusted to work better. The Stack Exchange Data Explorer (SEDE) is a good tool to find supporting data to help prove the need for an adjustment.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes such-kind of misjudging takes place. 1. electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/243414/… this post , initially started to collect downvote, but when an user (answerer) gave an explanation, it starts to get upvoted. And electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/243612/… This one was put-on-hold as "too broad",but none-of answers were too-broad, and later-on the question was reopened on votes. As subjectiveness of judgement, whatever rating of other user,I felt it could be useful at future \$\endgroup\$ – Always Confused Jul 6 '16 at 12:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ I know that this website seeks question for future use. But since it is a public-edited site, all-sorts of question will come. so, if the user mentions the type of question, it will act as a safety-valve. The website could give alerts that it could be asked on chat. And will help the moderators to deal/edit questions proper way. And as you mentioned, if a troubleshoot question got high votes; if a question mentioned by user as temporary; if felt as helpful by others, could-be re-rated by others. \$\endgroup\$ – Always Confused Jul 6 '16 at 12:32
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @AlwaysConfused - I think your examples and explanation (in your first comment) fully explain that the existing mechanisms work well without any changes. It may take several hours for the community to reach a consensus, but in the case you identify the result was fine. Further, who would be struggling with a problem, then ask a question, and want to mark the question in any way which might reduce the chances of getting good answers? IMHO that is hard to imagine. IMHO much better the people who spend time answering rate questions. This is not a forum; we discourage the 2 other question fates. \$\endgroup\$ – gbulmer Jul 6 '16 at 13:28
3
\$\begingroup\$

Your question is confusing and garbled, but I think the gist is you want askers to select a question type when asking. This type is then used to decide when to automatically delete, or not, the whole question.

That doesn't make sense within the context of this site. This site is about building a repository of knowledge, driven by questions encountered in real circumstances while doing electrical engineering. Deleting questions after some time limit defeats this goal.

Deleting questions also defeats the goals of those volunteering their time to provide free answers. Answering questions is not about helping some dweeb with their silly-ass problem of the day. It's about getting knowledge out there and speaking to a wider audience, with the OP being helped merely collateral benefit.

Think of the reverse. Who's going to spend valuable time writing something that won't leave a legacy of instruction into the future? This is the same reason it's already a waste of time to answer questions that will get closed.

So to summarize, your proposal doesn't work for the site, and doesn't work for those providing the value of this site. Basically, it doesn't make sense.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I did-not meant to delete some-questions. I told about changing the criteria of deletion, and also, classifying. I just wanted to tell, since this is a public-edited website, questions with temporary requirement will been submitted. Now, that is done by marking the questions by volunteers from a sea-full-of questions all looking the same, and indeed misjudgement sometimes take place while rating, since this is highly subjective task; there shouldbe classifications(other-than the topic-wise tag), and only the user can best rate. (badly misrated categories could be changed by moderators) \$\endgroup\$ – Always Confused Jul 6 '16 at 12:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .