Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!
-
Upvotes on questions will now be worth the same as upvotes on answers
Those of you who suffer from banner blindness may not have noticed the announcement: Stack Overflow is changing the reputation scoring system to make the reputation earned from upvotes on questions
-
From the comments:
I want to commend the Stack Exchange employees both for soliciting feedback from moderators and for listening to that feedback. Does that mean that the proposed change was even worse?
-
We already have newbies complaining about these simple questions with hundreds of upvotes. Not very welcoming to double the score of these, forcing the poor new stackoverflowers to work even harder to catch up!
-
Guess who made the change that this reverses?
In surprise to literally no-one...
In summary, Jeff Atwood's 2010 solution of lowering the reputation gained from question upvotes has not had the desired effect
-
@loopback0 said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
Guess who made the change that this reverses?
In surprise to literally no-one...
In summary, Jeff Atwood's 2010 solution of lowering the reputation gained from question upvotes has not had the desired effect
I vote to put
off the island.
-
It reminds me of poetry.com. Apparently there is a bigger supply of poets than of people wanting to read poetry. So in order to post, you have to review the poems of others.
-
@boomzilla said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
@loopback0 said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
Guess who made the change that this reverses?
In surprise to literally no-one...
In summary, Jeff Atwood's 2010 solution of lowering the reputation gained from question upvotes has not had the desired effect
I vote to put
off the island.But it seems like most people here would agree with him on this point - that people who give helpful answers should be rewarded more than people who ask questions.
-
@jinpa said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
It reminds me of poetry.com. Apparently there is a bigger supply of poets than of people wanting to read poetry. So in order to post, you have to review the poems of others.
That actually sounds reasonable. If you're a Vogon.
-
@jinpa said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
@boomzilla said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
@loopback0 said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
Guess who made the change that this reverses?
In surprise to literally no-one...
In summary, Jeff Atwood's 2010 solution of lowering the reputation gained from question upvotes has not had the desired effect
I vote to put
off the island.But it seems like most people here would agree with him on this point - that people who give helpful answers should be rewarded more than people who ask questions.
I think we just like to watch them thrash around in pain as they realize the Internetpointzz culture they created is toxic.
Also, the real heroes are the people who suggest using jquery.
-
@boomzilla said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
Also, the real heroes are the people who suggest using jquery.
I don't know. I think the real heroes are the people who close the questions for reasons that don't quite fit, such as claiming that one question is a duplicate of another, when in reality it's slightly different.
-
I see no problems with this. I mean, there’s countless problems with SO, but not with this specific change.
Managing to ask a question that’s both not "please give teh codez" and won’t get closed immediately deserves some pointzzzz.
-
@izzion This seems more in line with the (heroic) SO modus operandi:
We’re lowering the close/reopen vote threshold from 5 to 3 for good
It’s my birthday today and I’ve got a gift for you. 🎁 We’re lowering the close/reopen vote threshold on Stack Overflow from 5 to 3. About a month ago, Shog shared the results of our experiment te...
-
@topspin said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
Managing to ask a question that’s both not "please give teh codez" and won’t get closed immediately deserves some pointzzzz.
This will increase the reward for all questions, not just good ones. If anything this will increase the amount of gib codez homework question spam, and give the users making those questions more privileges
-
@hungrier Yeah, they didn't increase the weight of a downvote just an upvote, which does seem like it'd have that effect.
-
There's also this nugget:
This change will not only take effect for contributions from here forward, but it will also be applied retroactively.
Yes, they did write "retroactively" in italics. If this was a movie, that would be the cue for a jump scare sound effect.
-
@Zerosquare said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
There's also this nugget:
This change will not only take effect for contributions from here forward, but it will also be applied retroactively.
Yes, they did write "retroactively" in italics. If this was a movie, that would be the cue for a jump scare sound effect.
Underlining would have been the correct option there - but it seems like underlining is hardly ever done any more.
-
@jinpa said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
@Zerosquare said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
There's also this nugget:
This change will not only take effect for contributions from here forward, but it will also be applied retroactively.
Yes, they did write "retroactively" in italics. If this was a movie, that would be the cue for a jump scare sound effect.
Underlining would have been the correct option there - but it seems like underlining is hardly ever done any more.
jQuery could do that.
-
@jinpa said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
It reminds me of poetry.com. Apparently there is a bigger supply of poets than of people wanting to read poetry. So in order to post, you have to review the poems of others.
The word you're looking for is "so-called poets" or "self-proclaimed poets". Actual poets are few and far between. I say this as a self-proclaimed non-poet, by the way.
-
@jinpa Underlining and italics are the same thing, according to the one true specification that encompasses all possible formatting, Markdown.
*italicised text*= italicised text
_underlined_= underlined
-
@hungrier said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
@jinpa Underlining and italics are the same thing, according to the one true specification that encompasses all possible formatting, Markdown.
*italicised text*= italicised text
_underlined_= underlinedSpelling error detected. You meant "Barfdown".
-
@hungrier said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
@jinpa Underlining and italics are the same thing, according to the one true specification that encompasses all possible formatting, Markdown.
*italicised text*= italicised text
_underlined_= underlinedUnderlining was developed as a way of doing italics on printers that couldn't do italics. So it's not wrong. Underlining as emphasis doesn't really have any purpose anymore.
Same reason the
<em></em>tag does italics by default.
-
@Benjamin-Hall Maybe, but putting a line under text isn't a novel concept that was invented for printers or typewriters. It's visually different from italics, and just like bold text, all caps, larger text, etc, could be used for more variety.
-
@hungrier said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
@jinpa Underlining and italics are the same thing, according to the one true specification that encompasses all possible formatting, Markdown.
*italicised text*= italicised text
_underlined_= underlined**extra italicised text**= extra italicised text
__extra italicised text__= extra italicised text/italicised text?/= /italicised text?/
˂u˃underlined text?!˂/u˃= ˂u˃underlined text?!˂/u˃hu-uh.... curious indeed.
-
@hungrier said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
@Benjamin-Hall Maybe, but putting a line under text isn't a novel concept that was invented for printers or typewriters. It's visually different from italics, and just like bold text, all caps, larger text, etc, could be used for more variety.
It could (and is in very particular formats like MLA citation formatting), but there's really no point for it. It's just visual noise. And online, underlining has a meaning. It's a link. Using that for emphasis is just a recipe for confusion.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
Underlining was developed as a way of doing italics on printers that couldn't do italics. So it's not wrong. Underlining as emphasis doesn't really have any purpose anymore.
Disagree with your second sentence. According to the seminal book, M͟o͟l͟e͟c͟u͟l͟e͟s͟ ͟o͟f͟ ͟S͟t͟y͟l͟e͟, language features develop purposes over the centuries that were not part of the original raison d'etre. Once printers were capable of doing both underlining and italics, italics ceased to always be an indicator of simple emphasis, and more of an indicator of a special usage, or a foreign word. This left underlining as the best means of stressing an individual word in certain contexts, such as the one above. @boomzilla's criticism of the italics was quite correct, as it didn't quite fit the context. But this subtle distinction was clearly too much for the crude minds of the creators of Markdown to grasp.
-
@jinpa said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
@Zerosquare said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
There's also this nugget:
This change will not only take effect for contributions from here forward, but it will also be applied retroactively.
Yes, they did write "retroactively" in italics. If this was a movie, that would be the cue for a jump scare sound effect.
Underlining would have been the correct option there - but it seems like underlining is hardly ever done any more.
Underlining is basically never good typesetting. Italics is much better for emphasis.
@jinpa said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
Once printers were capable of doing both underlining and italics, italics ceased to always be an indicator of simple emphasis, and more of an indicator of a special usage, or a foreign word. This left underlining as the best means of stressing an individual word in certain contexts, such as the one above.
Not sure if you created this eye cancer on purpose, but it doesn’t make a good case for underlining:
-
@topspin UGH THE KERNI NG
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
Underlining was developed as a way of doing italics on
printerstypewriters that couldn't do italics.Also, of course, that was never the only purpose of underlining, although it was an important one for many years.
-
@topspin said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
Underlining is basically never good typesetting.
Underlining was a thing not easily done in traditional typesetting, just as italicization was not possible on most typewriters (IBM Selectrics could do it by removing the ball and replacing it with an italic typeface ball) and many computer printers. The stylistic conventions adapted to the capabilities of the devices.
-
@jinpa said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
Underlining would have been the correct option there - but it seems like underlining is hardly ever done any more.
It takes more effort to type.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
@hungrier said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
@jinpa Underlining and italics are the same thing, according to the one true specification that encompasses all possible formatting, Markdown.
*italicised text*= italicised text
_underlined_= underlinedSpelling error detected. You meant "Barfdown".
I prepare the more socially acceptable "markdumb".
-
@jinpa said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
@boomzilla said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
Also, the real heroes are the people who suggest using jquery.
I don't know. I think the real heroes are the people who close the questions for reasons that don't quite fit, such as claiming that one question is a duplicate of another, when in reality it's slightly different.
Fun fact: if you vote to re-open because you disagree with why it was closed, you cannot then vote to close for a different reason. (Yes, I used to click through the moderation queues until I got a couple badgers for that, and/or got annoyed by their "are you paying attention" questions which wanted wrong answers.)
-
@hungrier IIRC there is a combination of score, being closed, and answers that will delete the question after a while, and I assume at that point you lose the score from it. (I can't recall if it's non-positive score, closed, and no answers at all, or no positive-score answers.)
I wouldn't know, since I've asked… three? questions, but answering every now and then makes a nice pomodoro break.
-
...and the "question" is now sitting at -500 points. Great Job, Stack Exchange!
-
@Zerosquare said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
...and the "question" is now sitting at -500 points. Great Job, Stack Exchange!
hands up anyone who is surprised?
anyone?
anyone?
Bueller?
-
@Vixen "Meta.SE is toxic, so let's just stop listening there"
Also not too surprising, but they are actually planning it...
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
@jinpa said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
It reminds me of poetry.com. Apparently there is a bigger supply of poets than of people wanting to read poetry. So in order to post, you have to review the poems of others.
The word you're looking for is "so-called poets" or "self-proclaimed poets". Actual poets are few and far between. I say this as a self-proclaimed non-poet, by the way.
This reminds me of a scam my brother once fell for.
They hold a poetry contest! Submit your poem and the most talented poets will be selected for publication! You can be a published poet.
Well, actually, the bar is really low. They hold these contests all the time and most people "win." Your poem will be published in volume CXVII of a book of mediocre amateur poetry that only friends and family of the poet will ever buy. You will not receive a dime in royalties.
Congratulations!
Edit: I guess it's not really a scam because they don't actually lie to you. It's just a much worse deal than it sounds like.
-
Some disreputable science journals have the same modus operandi.
-
@Zerosquare said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
Some disreputable science journals have the same modus operandi.
Not quite. They also make you pay for getting published and ask you to review other people's shitty poems for free.
-
@jinpa said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
italics ceased to always be an indicator of simple emphasis, and more of an indicator of a special usage, or a foreign word. This left underlining as the best means of stressing an individual word in certain contexts
Except on the web it evolved the other way around, with underlining used to indicate special usage—links—and italics returning to mean simple emphasis.
Also,
@hungrier said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
italicised text = italicised text
Actually, it's
*emphasized text*→<em>emphasized text</em>
**strongly emphasized text**→<strong>strongly emphasized text</strong>and the default stylesheet renders
<em>with italics and<strong>with bold._is equivalent to*.
-
@topspin said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
@Zerosquare said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
Some disreputable science journals have the same modus operandi.
Not quite. They also make you pay for getting published and ask you to review other people's shitty poems for free.
That's exactly how scam journals work, except they tend to ignore the whole peer review piece. You pay big bucks to get "published" in a journal with a negative impact factor. Or one where it never really gets published and your paper gets reused by someone else in an actual journal.
-
@Bulb said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
@jinpa said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
italics ceased to always be an indicator of simple emphasis, and more of an indicator of a special usage, or a foreign word. This left underlining as the best means of stressing an individual word in certain contexts
Except on the web it evolved the other way around, with underlining used to indicate special usage—links—and italics returning to mean simple emphasis.
Except that the web has not really had time to "evolve" in any respectable sense. The web is still in its infancy, and the people who inhabit it quite often have inferior minds to those in the print world. Give it several decades, and custom on the web among the commoners may start to catch up with the simple but accurate notion that italics are not always up to the task of replacing a sensible use of underlining.
-
@jinpa said in Having not driven enough users away with StackPronouns, it's time to adjust the rules for reputation whoring!:
sensible use of underlining
Is there even such a thing? There is a reason why TeX does not even support it in any of the standard packages.
-
We’re excited to transition some of these functions off Meta, giving them the attention and focus they deserve.
Important Reputation Rule Changes - Stack Overflow
