由人民日报社组织的“人文汉水”采访采风团来到
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 25 at 15:59 | comment | added | Starship | @Hoid I think what Starball is saying that, since comments decreased during the experiment (whether because of the experiment or not), the number should be adjusted to that. In other words, measuring what percent of comments are thanks comments is more useful than the absolute number. | |
| Apr 24 at 19:01 | comment | added | Hoid StaffMod | @starball I am saying my reasoning is not totally airtight, with comments returning to normal at the conclusion of the experiment. I am not up to date on commenting declines as a whole, but the snapshot in the time before the experiment and after, I believe, are sufficient enough to identify harm we may have inflicted with the change outside of any general ongoing decline over the last few years. | |
| Apr 24 at 17:15 | comment | added | starball Mod | @Hoid what's not airtight reasoning? I'm saying that if there's an overall trend of decline in commenting in the same period you observe decline in thanks comments, you should take that into account. if you didn't already, your "10%" decline in thanks comments should be adjusted to be relative to the general decline, which would make it less than 10%. | |
| Apr 24 at 16:47 | comment | added | Hoid StaffMod | @starball I couldn't say for sure why your number is different. I know they used a 7-day moving average to review the data. I would need to schedule some time with them to review that, and I'm not sure when that would be. In terms of deterring commenting, we see that in the data we reviewed, there was a decline in commenting, especially as indicated in the first week. In particular, we saw comment levels return to relatively normal after the drop-down menu was removed. So it's not airtight reasoning, but I do believe it to be the most likely. | |
| Apr 23 at 19:22 | comment | added | Starship | @starball Perhaps the company calculation is not immune to that. And I like to think I know about how many NAAs there are as well...but it seems that the number of Natty and Dharmanbot reports points to you being correct about there being no uptick in NAAs. Perhaps what I was noticing was an uptick in the time NAAs stay (becuase most people involved with dealing with NAAs, particularly from SOBotics and NAABot, disappeared or their activity was far lower) | |
| Apr 23 at 17:42 | comment | added | starball Mod | @Starship I can't imagine that to make a statistically significant difference. I have a sort of good thumb on the pulse of non-answers and I didn't see any uptick. and the way I calculated things by taking the lowest comment ID per next time period, I'm pretty sure my calculation is fairly immune from that anyway. | |
| Apr 23 at 17:10 | comment | added | Starship | @starball Possibly this experiment caused people who would have posted comments to post non-answers which were later turned into comment and hence got a later ID, which (maybe?) explains the discrepancy. Or possibly they did something to account for the problem in meta.stackoverflow.com/a/433654/21440243 | |
| Apr 23 at 16:08 | comment | added | starball Mod | @Hoid so why is my number different than yours? that doesn't explain how you (the company) did your calculation. "Clearly the drop down menu deterred some people from commenting" people's feedback on meta supports that, but to what degree the data "clearly" shows that... again, did you normalize for context like the existing, consistent downward trend in site activity? | |
| Apr 23 at 16:03 | comment | added | Hoid StaffMod | This is the main reason why when we return the feature, it will get a dedicated button. Clearly the drop down menu deterred some people from commenting. So when its brought back it will be a separate button. | |
| Apr 23 at 15:59 | comment | added | Hoid StaffMod | We were measuring on a 7 day period from the start to end date. We expected to see a decline in commenting somewhere between 3-7%. In the first 7 days we did see that hit 9%. However, the average from there was hovering slightly above or below 3%. | |
| Apr 22 at 23:18 | comment | added | starball Mod | @Mark I don't disagree. I think it's good to explore making it more obvious to users what to do with site features in common user scenarios. I just can't understand why discussions was chosen as the place to route users to instead of Q&A for... Q&A. | |
| Apr 22 at 22:20 | comment | added | Mark | "Just make a new question post and link to the related one, explaining the connection in words as needed" is obvious to you, but it's not obvious to someone who hasn't been using the site for years. An "ask followup question" that automatically creates the link will be a major benefit for new users. | |
| Apr 22 at 20:54 | comment | added | starball Mod | @ThomA that's why I used the lowest comment ID for each month and got the diff between each month. | |
| Apr 22 at 20:35 | comment | added | Thom A | Note that SEDE has no option(s) for deleted comments, so your numbers could easily be skewed by the lack back. | |
| Apr 22 at 18:42 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | Possibly the linked question section could be divided into from/to links to make a bit clearer who cited whom. Or there could be a submenu of the ask question button on a page with an existing Q&A that offers to create some skeleton for a "related" question. | |
| Apr 22 at 18:15 | history | answered | starballMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |