Timeline for How quick to act should moderators be?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 23, 2013 at 8:08 | comment | added | Bart Koopman Mod | @DominicCronin your answer was flagged as not an answer, and I agreed with that flag. The first 5 words of your answer were indeed an answer, but would be considered to short to be a valid answer. I feel you found my action to be to fast and of too much impact, but yet up until today you haven't actually added your "edited" full answer to the question. So I would say that my action was justified, waiting 24 hours or more wouldn't have made much difference, other than perhaps giving ppl the idea that low quality answers were allowed, that's my main point here. | |
| Aug 23, 2013 at 7:44 | comment | added | Dominic Cronin | @BartKoopman - I wasn't wanting to go over all this again, but if I must... My answer was an answer, not a comment, and the accepted answer was essentially an expanded version of mine. Yes - comments can be used to elicit improvements in questions. But this meta question was about the speed of reaction expected of moderators, vs. organic improvement by the community, so this really is a tangential discussion. | |
| Aug 23, 2013 at 6:12 | comment | added | Bart Koopman Mod | @DominicCronin if you would have left your answer as just yes, it would have gotten an automatic flag of being too short, but you didn't get that because you added a question in there. Please see the about section on how to ask for more information or clarify a question, it states, use comments. I also still don't see what your real problem is, you still have the option to answer that question, just because your original flagged "answer" was converted into a comment does not stop you from adding a new valid answer to the question, what is the harm? | |
| Aug 22, 2013 at 19:26 | comment | added | Dominic Cronin | @GlennStevens On the occasion that triggered this discussion, it was a case of hours, which is far too short. As an indicator of a reasonable time-frame, I'd say the delay before you are allowed to put a bounty on a question would be more reasonable. At least wait until most of the people who check the site every day will have seen it. Also - beware of automatic flags - they are not the most subtle of things. | |
| Aug 16, 2013 at 18:24 | comment | added | Glenn Stevens Mod | Dominic, how long do you think we should wait to deal with flags such as these? On other SE sites I have seen the negative side of Moderators pulling the trigger too quickly (mostly on close votes on questions) without waiting for the wider community to have a chance to act on them but in some cases the question is how long is too long? | |
| Aug 15, 2013 at 7:39 | comment | added | Bart Koopman Mod | Yeah sure you are one of the users that would go to the trouble of actually updating your answer making it better, but in the meantime you still send out the message to other users that questions here are okay to be answered with just "yes", which devaluates the site. | |
| Aug 14, 2013 at 18:37 | comment | added | Dominic Cronin | Of course, many of your points are good. Still, (and the reason why I cast my meta question as I did) I really feel moderators should take a little more time before jumping to summary judgements. As I see it, the idea is for things to take their course organically, with the moderators there specifically to deal with situations that the rest of the community can't or doesn't deal with. Sure - so I fired off a very quick answer in my lunch break, but to get home in the evening and then find that in the meantime my answer had been poached and effectively deleted.... not great. | |
| Aug 14, 2013 at 7:59 | history | edited | Bart KoopmanMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 characters in body
|
| Aug 14, 2013 at 7:51 | history | answered | Bart KoopmanMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |