Welcome to the new Writing Q&A site! This is the place for anybody interested in the craft of professional writing, editing, and publishing. We welcome questions about all types of writing: fiction, poetry, technical documentation, journalism, scriptwriting, non-fiction, essays, and more. Got questions? Click the "ask" button! Able to offer answers? Try the search button, click on any tag, or just browse. And please vote on content that stands out.
If you have an account on Writing Stack Exchange, you can claim your questions and answers with your account here.
We're currently running on temporary software while waiting for Codidact to be ready. The URL is on codidact.com now, and the software will be updated to match later. Regardless of the software, you can help us expand our library of questions and answers right now -- please join us.
The model on SE was moderation, not curation. Nothing was ever removed. Duplicates, were marked, but never resolved. The only way any kind of curation occurred at all was through voting, and voting was not based on the expertise of the voter. Bad advice was supposed to sink to the bottom of the page, and good advice to rise to the top, through voting. But this assumed that the mass of voters were reliable arbiters of quality and accuracy.
It did not always work. Votes often went to the first answer posted, while the question was fresh and attracting eyeballs. A much better answer posted a week later would have very little chance of ever rising to the top because the question would just not get as many views a week after it was posted, and many would not read all the way down to the new answer if they were satisfied with the inferior but highly rated answer at the top. This effect tended to be worse for writing than for more technical stacks, because most of the answers are not provable mechanically in the way programming answers are, for instance.
No model is perfect, of course. But I think that the questions you raise about handling the old content really come down to this distinction between curation and moderation. Moderators deal with behavior. Curators deal with content. Anything we do with the imported content is curation.
No method of managing content is perfect. Community curation through voting is an interesting model, and clearly performs well in some cases. But it also clearly leads to the accumulation of an immense amount of duplication and cruft. And to start the process over again for a body of content as large as this will clearly mean that it will be months, and perhaps years, before the curation effect of voting really kicks in.
So if you really want to do anything with the current content, what you are really talking about is curation. And maybe that is not such a bad thing. Vast numbers of poor answers, silly questions, and duplicate questions and answers could be removed with little controversy by a reasonable curator or team of curators.
That curation effort would yield a site that is far easier to navigate, and thus far more useful and more likely to attract traffic. Fixing up question titles so that they actually reflected the question asked -- making them actually be questions -- would, by itself, make a huge difference.
And maybe it is worth thinking about whether active curation, alone or in combination with voting, should be a permanent feature of the new site. After all, if you want to draw traffic to this site, despite it having fewer numbers of active users, making it easier to use would be a good draw.
But if we go that route, it seems to me that curators and moderators should be two distinct roles. Moderators should be focussed on behavior and the topics that are active right now. Curators should probably not get involved until the questions have cooled a little, and they should deal strictly with the content.
One element of curating is which answer got accepted. It relates to what Amadeus says about first answer getting all the votes: the OP presumably sees all answers, and picks the one that helped most. That helps draw attention to that answer, which might not be the first one. I suppose we're going to have the "accept answer" feature here eventually? Then marking which answer to older questions was accepted shouldn't be an issue - we know who did the accepting.
With regards to the volume, I think with better visibility of older questions, they'll curate themselves eventually in the same way new questions get curated. For that, I believe we need some sort of suggestion mechanism, similar to what we had on SE, especially when we start asking a new question. (Such a mechanism is extremely useful for other reasons as well.)
We also need the curating tools: vote to close, vote to reopen, vote to delete. It shouldn't all be on the moderators.
I'd say if they (Q) were closed before, open them and give them a downvote, and if they get "enough" downvotes (3? 5?) close them. I would like the same for both Q and A. SE had a "review queue", ours would just be downvoted questions.
For answers, I'd say any answer with 2+ downvotes should be hidden (viewable with a click) and available in a review queue; deleted after five downvotes. As a programmer myself, I'd put a counter on the user's account to see how often they get hammered for Q and A on review, at some point they are just here to offend, or work out their psychological aggression, and candidates for expulsion.
I agree with Mark about the structural issues with voting; i.e. the best answers (mine!) are often too late to get the most attention. Things I can think of to address that is to put the highest rated or accepted answer LAST, or leave them in answer order but reversed: The Newest answer is on top, whether it is accepted or the highest score or not. Or use the default SE sort and provide buttons to sort the answers by score or age. (I see this was discussed in the comments on Mark's answer.)
I don't mind moderators making unilateral decisions on OLD Q or A or comments. I wouldn't want to see this site get into the autocratic control mode of SE, but I do agree that we don't need to see spam, insults, racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc (unless it is a legitimate question or answer about racism, etc).
There is a rather fuzzy line to be drawn somewhere!
I like the idea of community moderation and curation, supplemented by more professional eyes at times. The only problem would be self-serving moderation; voting down Q or A as part of the "game" of getting the most points. SE tried to fix that in their gamification by making the downvote cost you two points, but an upvote costs you nothing.
I don't think discouraging downvotes is an intelligent answer though, then you have to sacrifice points to be altruistic and serve as a community moderator. A better answer might be requiring a comment to explain a downvote, instead of just accepting it. Review of the lame excuses a user makes for their downvotes could reveal that self-serving downvotes is the real pattern. So it doesn't cost points to downvote, but takes more of an effort than upvoting, you do have to publicly explain yourself. Which might, when moderating is the true motivator, help educate the poster as to what was wrong with their Q or A.
To be honest, part of the reason why I asked this question on the Codidact forum was because of how writing.codidact.com (Writing.CO) looks a lot like a clone site.
There's 366-ish pages of questions. There's maybe 360-ish pages of cloned questions and answers. Writing.CO is basically a clone site. There's going to be a difficult decision here: What percentage of cloned material do we want on Writing.CO?
The questions you ask now will set the tone and topic for a long time to come. Try not to "seed" your site too much or the whole thing is going to start to look staid and forced. That will not make for an interesting site.
(Robert Cartaino; see also Your New Site: Asking the First Questions, 2010)
There are non-negligible drawbacks to being a clone site. Yet, there are drawbacks to not cloning (e.g. what if someone asks a duplicate of a Writing.SE question?). I don't see an easy answer to this problem.
Also, while people assert "QPixel is not Codidact", the URL (writing.codidact.com) overrides this. Practically, Codidact is QPixel, and QPixel is a basically a Stack Exchange clone. (Moreover, it's likely that Writing.CO is going to be the make-or-break site for Codidact.)
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 :)
I think on the whole, anything that was marked "keeping only for historical value" -- those are probably delete-able. In general, how many of the oldest questions ARE worth keeping as they are? Should any be merged towards a NEWER duplicate instead of the newer ones going to the older ones?
Also, do we plan to handle duplicates the exact same way SE did? I'd love if there were a way to "cluster" them -- instead of saying "this one is a duplicate and thus not needed," say "this appears to be a duplicate of that -- people may have several ways of coming to this question, so we'll CLUSTER it with the core one, but it can stay as its own branch? Something like that.