Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on How shall we handle our old (imported) content?

Parent

How shall we handle our old (imported) content?

+6
−0

When we created this site, I made the executive decision to import all our content from Stack Exchange instead of starting with a blank slate. I did that for a few reasons:

  • We have a lot of good content there, and we should continue to have ready access to, and curate, that content.

  • I felt there would be a stronger incentive for SE users to come here if they could bring their work here. Having some of your content there and some here would be a pain, and I feared we'd lose some people because managing two sites is a hassle.

  • I wanted there to be a front page full of questions when we invited people here.

I considered asking ArtOfCode to run queries that would pull in only some of the content, like only upvoted non-closed questions or only questions with answers or other things. But that could get complicated (especially when we still want people to be able to have all their content if they want it), and Art was already doing us a big favor in setting up this community for us while we wait for the Codidact software to be ready.

We now have people here (yay!), and as we look through existing posts and (re)cast votes (1) and edit, we're seeing that there is in fact a lot of stuff here. And a lot of it is good, and we should give it the attention it deserves! And some of it is, maybe, not so good, and we should give it the attention it deserves too.

What I, and I think some others, have been doing is to kind of meander through the site, reading and voting. I've tried to review all the answers to all of my own questions, and in the process made some improvements. I also use tags as a starting point, though I'm nowhere near through all the questions on my favorite tags yet. And sometimes I just pick a page of questions and go. I encourage others to do any or all of these, too.

But my question is: how should we be curating this content?

Specifically:

  • What should we do with questions that were closed at the time of import? I reopened one yesterday, but most should probably stay closed. Some of them are of historical significance (we don't have locks here yet, sorry) and some were well-received if ultimately closed. At the other end of the spectrum, there might be some that have no answers or are downvoted, and maybe those should be deleted -- they can be re-asked if applicable.

  • What should we do if we come across answers that don't answer the question or are link-only answers? We have a couple moderator flags about this already, which we haven't handled pending some community consensus.

  • Assuming Art is willing to run some queries, should we do any systematic culling, and if so what? (Downvoted unanswered questions?)

  • How does our community feel about moderators making unilateral deletion decisions? We don't have auditing tools for this right now, but we can keep a list of deleted posts here on meta and lower the rep threshold for being able to view them. (That threshold is currently 1000, which nobody has.)

  • Other issues or suggestions?


(1) When we imported the content we reset scores to zero. We did this for two reasons: first, we do not have access to data about who voted, so we can't track your individual votes from that content. Second, we felt that in this respect a new site called for a fresh start, and that the people here should cast the votes that affect the ranking of the content here. We have the original scores available (though not, I think, the upvote/downvote split); if you think we should revisit this decision, please raise it.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+2
−0

I just joined, so I'm a bit late to the party, and to begin with I wasn't exactly a particularly prominent SE user. I'd just like to quietly express interest in the idea of also importing vote information from SE, for the following reasons that I think match up well with the reasons you gave for importing the other content:

  • We do have a lot of good content there, and many people here (myself included) have already done some curation of that content. As far as I can tell, the same voting rules apply here as they did on SE, and hypothetically the same users. Given that the situation is more-or-less identical, I don't see why the votes would be invalidated.

  • I firmly believe that the strong incentive for content transfer applies equally, if not more-so, to votes. People value their "points" on SE a great deal, and it's a decent way to evaluate contributions to a site. Understandably we would want some way to identify old contributions to SE vs. new contributions to codidact, but that could potentially be solved by having two fields for old vs new points. That way people can still enjoy having their points while also feeling encouraged to help bring life to the new site.

  • I think having a front page full of questions is a great idea that helps things feel more alive, but in my opinion it kind of serves the opposite purpose if all of the posts are totally devoid of all votes. It sets a strange precedent for new users, I think, and makes it obvious where content is "lifeless".

Hopefully this feedback isn't totally useless. I really like what you guys are doing here.

P.S. A 'Preview' for creating a post would be really nice :)

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (5 comments)
General comments
ArtOfCode‭ wrote about 4 years ago

We imported scores but didn't apply them - click the history link under any imported post, and you'll be able to find the score under the "imported from external source" event.

OnyZ‭ wrote about 4 years ago

@ArtOfCode In that case I still think that my arguments apply towards applying them, as well, since hiding them still has the same issues as described, I feel.

Monica Cellio‭ wrote about 4 years ago

Thank you for this input (definitely not useless!). One reason we didn't import the votes is that we can't connect them to users; from the data dump we can only tell how many votes (in each direction) a post had, but we can't tell where those votes came from. Rather than having people voting twice (you voted there and then see the question and vote again here), we decided to reset. The vote totals are available, and maybe we should figure out how to make them more visible.

OnyZ‭ wrote about 4 years ago

@MonicaCellio Ahh, if the vote totals can't be assigned to people, that does complicate things... In that case as you say, I guess the best way to alleviate the issues as I see it would be to increase the visibility of these "Archived" votes?

Mark Baker‭ wrote about 4 years ago

It occurs to me that one of the ways in which social proof militates against curation is that any reduction of duplication or elimination of inferior answers involves reducing reputation (unless reputation is separated from individual content items somehow).