Timeline for Please charge rep for questions after threshold
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:36 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Jan 29, 2010 at 3:45 | comment | added | L. Cornelius Dol | It's not the "bad" questions; it's the trivial so-so ones that attract a few votes... multiplied by a thousand questions means the use is a mod without actually contributing anything substantive of value (a lot of "noise", but nothing substantive). | |
| Nov 30, 2009 at 17:00 | comment | added | U62 | In what way are people contributing to the site by posting hundreds lots of fabricated questions? I signed up to this primarily to help people - if I wanted to play some game where my knowlege is tested purely to gain bragging points I'd waste my time on Project Euler or some other nonsense. Anyone that posts 400 questions and no answers is beyond help. As for downvoting - it's a waste of time as has been widely discussed elsewhere. | |
| Nov 30, 2009 at 15:07 | comment | added | bobobobo | I think people that ask hundreds of questions contribute nearly as much to the site as people who deliver hundreds of answers. As for the quality of the questions, the voting system is what you should be attacking (the "bad" questions really should be downvoted or closed). If there are no questions, people who normally answer questions just won't type anything. | |
| Nov 30, 2009 at 12:06 | comment | added | U62 | @bobobobo what's that got to do with abuse question askers? Or do you really think people who ask hundreds of questions because they have no intention of working anything out for themselves ever again, is a good thing? Yes, I realise that without people asking questions there would be nothing for question answerers to do, but there are enough genuine questions out there without people wasting time on people who just ask questions because they've got nothing better to do. | |
| Nov 30, 2009 at 6:44 | comment | added | bobobobo | Guys, the site is questions and answers. The question askers are pointing at a zebra, and the answerers are devouring it. Without askers the lions won't have anything to eat! Also, a question that gets upvoted 6 times, might have a top voted answer with 12 upvotes, and then a couple more with 3 upvotes or more. A lot more rep gets handed out to peopel with good answers to the supposedly "good" question (ironically this question has a lot more upvotes than its top voted answer..) | |
| Nov 11, 2009 at 2:33 | comment | added | Kzqai | Awarding points for good questions is fine, it just does seem disadvantageous if asking slews of questions is more efficient for points than providing excellent answers. Lowering the benefit questions when you have a (much) higher ratio of low quality questions to answers seems appropriate, though. | |
| Nov 11, 2009 at 1:37 | comment | added | L. Cornelius Dol | I wish I could up-vote this more than once! | |
| Oct 13, 2009 at 0:23 | comment | added | user131831 | What is interesting here is U62, a genuine IT professional, dropped off from contributing to the website. Much like myself. | |
| Jul 22, 2009 at 14:17 | comment | added | user131831 | U62, I agree 100%. Awarding rep for asking questions is silly. If you are going to award points for questions, then segregate points for answers from points for questions entirely. 1) They aren't comparable, 2) they perversely reward the wrong people, 3) when knowledgeable contributors wake up and realise dumb questions get equally rewarded with worked answers, it disincentivises them. | |
| Jul 22, 2009 at 12:57 | comment | added | U62 | Just read Jeff's comment about how he's seen people ask tons of questions and get no rep for them - Implying I guess that this isn't a big deal. It occurs to me (particularly in the case of the user "THanks" who asks lots of iPhone questions, a category that I focus on), that I'd like some way to know that a question is from one of these abusive users before I even click on it, so I don't waste any time on it. | |
| Jul 22, 2009 at 12:50 | history | answered | U62 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |