Can I ask you a question? January 30, 2008 5:56 PM Subscribe
I propose that a new flag be added to AskMe posts: "OP has shown that he/she does not have a genuine interest in getting this question answered."
How about a flag for MeTa for "poster does not really want his/her pony?"
posted by Admiral Haddock at 6:02 PM on January 30, 2008 [5 favorites]
posted by Admiral Haddock at 6:02 PM on January 30, 2008 [5 favorites]
We want to get rid of these posts because they break the guidelines, right?
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:11 PM on January 30, 2008
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:11 PM on January 30, 2008
I surrender! *waves flag*
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:13 PM on January 30, 2008
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:13 PM on January 30, 2008
Did Smilla close their own account or what?
posted by puke & cry at 6:17 PM on January 30, 2008
posted by puke & cry at 6:17 PM on January 30, 2008
mathowie: That's only the latest example. I was not trying to implicitly attack one post; I was seriously suggesting that a new flag be added.
'Questions' of this type end up with a lot of 'answers' attacking the OP for not really asking a question, and the thread turns into an argument...and after all, isn't the purpose of flags to make it easy for people to register standard complaints without actually posting an 'answer'?
I thought it would be obvious to everyone who follows the site that this is a frequently recurring problem. It certainly comes up a lot more often than racism or sexism, in my opinion. But if nobody else sees it, then by all means, everyone carry on their merry way.
posted by bingo at 6:23 PM on January 30, 2008
'Questions' of this type end up with a lot of 'answers' attacking the OP for not really asking a question, and the thread turns into an argument...and after all, isn't the purpose of flags to make it easy for people to register standard complaints without actually posting an 'answer'?
I thought it would be obvious to everyone who follows the site that this is a frequently recurring problem. It certainly comes up a lot more often than racism or sexism, in my opinion. But if nobody else sees it, then by all means, everyone carry on their merry way.
posted by bingo at 6:23 PM on January 30, 2008
I concur.
Questions where the OP just wants people to agree with them belong in Metatalk, not AskMe.
Amirite?
posted by pompomtom at 6:32 PM on January 30, 2008 [1 favorite]
Questions where the OP just wants people to agree with them belong in Metatalk, not AskMe.
Amirite?
posted by pompomtom at 6:32 PM on January 30, 2008 [1 favorite]
"breaks guidelines" works fine, but I realize it does not convey how pissed off these questions make people. Yes, Smilla closed their own account. "XYZ sucks AMRITE?" questions do in fact break the guidelines.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:53 PM on January 30, 2008
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:53 PM on January 30, 2008
Yeah, breaks guidelines already covers this bingo.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:54 PM on January 30, 2008
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:54 PM on January 30, 2008
Thirding on "breaks guidelines"; it's always cool to drop us a line going into a little more detail if you think there's something specifically wrong with a question beyond what the flags convey, though.
This'd be a really specific flag, and really kind of button-pushing/reactionary in the same way that a "troll" or "jerk" flag would be. They sound like a good idea when you feel like someone is being a jerk or a troll, but if you can't actually beg what's wrong with a comment or post on any of the existing flags it's probably more a situation for some careful consideration and/or an email describing the situation than a flag.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:25 PM on January 30, 2008
This'd be a really specific flag, and really kind of button-pushing/reactionary in the same way that a "troll" or "jerk" flag would be. They sound like a good idea when you feel like someone is being a jerk or a troll, but if you can't actually beg what's wrong with a comment or post on any of the existing flags it's probably more a situation for some careful consideration and/or an email describing the situation than a flag.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:25 PM on January 30, 2008
Can we have a flag for "type of post that will spawn a post to MeTa about the need for a highly-specific flag?"
posted by desuetude at 7:38 PM on January 30, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by desuetude at 7:38 PM on January 30, 2008 [3 favorites]
cortex: it's always cool to drop us a line going into a little more detail if you think there's something specifically wrong with a question beyond what the flags convey, though.
Could you clarify drop us a line? Is this sort of Flag+ best done via MeMail or the Contact form? I'm pretty sure I know the answer, just looking for clarification on behalf of those who may not.
posted by carsonb at 7:41 PM on January 30, 2008
Could you clarify drop us a line? Is this sort of Flag+ best done via MeMail or the Contact form? I'm pretty sure I know the answer, just looking for clarification on behalf of those who may not.
posted by carsonb at 7:41 PM on January 30, 2008
Could you clarify drop us a line?
The contact form emails mathowie, cortex and me. MeFiMail works but you can only MeFiMail us one at a time. If you see any of us on IM you can just ping us and say "hey, this post is totally screwed up!" Really if you want to drop us a line and point out something terrible, you don't even have to flag something. It's sort of performing the same function but flagging allows us to see how many people have similar opinions.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:05 PM on January 30, 2008
The contact form emails mathowie, cortex and me. MeFiMail works but you can only MeFiMail us one at a time. If you see any of us on IM you can just ping us and say "hey, this post is totally screwed up!" Really if you want to drop us a line and point out something terrible, you don't even have to flag something. It's sort of performing the same function but flagging allows us to see how many people have similar opinions.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:05 PM on January 30, 2008
The main problem with 'breaks guidelines' in cases like this, is that it often isn't obvious at first that the OP wasn't looking for a real answer. In fact, sometimes it's obvious that the OP thinks they're looking for a real answer, only to change their tune later in the thread.
And in such cases, let's face it, the thread doesn't get closed, because it's impossible to prove that the guidelines have been broken. Until the OP reveals more, it may not be clear whether they had a genuine interest in finding an answer or not.
And by the time it does become clear...well, the thread is often well under way, only the people who have been following it can tell, and by that point they're already invested in the argument, so there is a sort of momentum that keeps it going.
As far as emailing the admins, well...a lot of people won't. And I'm not asking for your advice about how I should deal with this situation personally; I'm making a suggestion for what *you* should do to improve the overall community experience.
A big part of what I do for a living these days deals with tracking and analyzing online user experience, and I'm positive that, for the same grievance, more users are going to flag than send an email. But no doubt you know this already; otherwise there wouldn't be any flags. It is possible to just let users send you an email for any issue; but obviously, there are some issues for which flagging is more efficient, and I'm suggesting that this is one such issue.
posted by bingo at 8:05 PM on January 30, 2008
And in such cases, let's face it, the thread doesn't get closed, because it's impossible to prove that the guidelines have been broken. Until the OP reveals more, it may not be clear whether they had a genuine interest in finding an answer or not.
And by the time it does become clear...well, the thread is often well under way, only the people who have been following it can tell, and by that point they're already invested in the argument, so there is a sort of momentum that keeps it going.
As far as emailing the admins, well...a lot of people won't. And I'm not asking for your advice about how I should deal with this situation personally; I'm making a suggestion for what *you* should do to improve the overall community experience.
A big part of what I do for a living these days deals with tracking and analyzing online user experience, and I'm positive that, for the same grievance, more users are going to flag than send an email. But no doubt you know this already; otherwise there wouldn't be any flags. It is possible to just let users send you an email for any issue; but obviously, there are some issues for which flagging is more efficient, and I'm suggesting that this is one such issue.
posted by bingo at 8:05 PM on January 30, 2008
I'd love if the flags had a fill-in-the-blank option. I have no idea if that would be prohibitively difficult to do. Sometimes I second guess flagging something, so it might be nice to have the opportunity to clarify what I think is wrong with it.
posted by fermezporte at 8:17 PM on January 30, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by fermezporte at 8:17 PM on January 30, 2008 [1 favorite]
A big part of what I do for a living these days deals with tracking and analyzing online user experience, and I'm positive that, for the same grievance, more users are going to flag than send an email.
Hopefully you could see if we added a bunch of specialized, specific flagging reasons, the ease of use of the flagging feature would lead it to being used less? We only have a few quick options now, and it works really fast without barely a couple clicks. If you had to scroll through twenty seven options trying to find just the right flagging reason, it'd add a lot of mental friction to the workflow and people would use it less.
There are eight options for a reason and they're general so they cover as much ground as possible, to make the feature as easy to use as possible. We could probably reduce it further to just five or six, tops with a bit of more editing. Less is more in this case.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:29 PM on January 30, 2008 [2 favorites]
Hopefully you could see if we added a bunch of specialized, specific flagging reasons, the ease of use of the flagging feature would lead it to being used less? We only have a few quick options now, and it works really fast without barely a couple clicks. If you had to scroll through twenty seven options trying to find just the right flagging reason, it'd add a lot of mental friction to the workflow and people would use it less.
There are eight options for a reason and they're general so they cover as much ground as possible, to make the feature as easy to use as possible. We could probably reduce it further to just five or six, tops with a bit of more editing. Less is more in this case.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:29 PM on January 30, 2008 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure this problem requires its own special flag, but I do see bingo's point, particularly with his latest clarification. "Breaks Guidelines" makes sense for a post like the one mathowie pointed out which is obvious chatfilter. But what about something like this, where a completely legitimate, answerable question is asked and only later in the thread, when reading the OP's hostile responses to those who answered her question in a way she didn't like does it become obvious that getting an answer was never the main goal?
The question itself doesn't break any guidelines, so flagging it as such seems inappropriate. And flagging the OP's follow-up comments would only get those specific comments deleted, correct (even though reading them makes it obvious the question was asked in bad faith), as opposed to getting the whole question tossed?
posted by The Gooch at 8:54 PM on January 30, 2008
The question itself doesn't break any guidelines, so flagging it as such seems inappropriate. And flagging the OP's follow-up comments would only get those specific comments deleted, correct (even though reading them makes it obvious the question was asked in bad faith), as opposed to getting the whole question tossed?
posted by The Gooch at 8:54 PM on January 30, 2008
Fill-in-the-blank flags would be sweet. Like, in place of "other". It would be entertaining for the mods too--up to a point.
posted by hermitosis at 9:07 PM on January 30, 2008
posted by hermitosis at 9:07 PM on January 30, 2008
It would be entertaining for the mods too--up to a point.
Trust me, it really wouldn't.
The Gooch, in the example that you give, what should have been done? Should the question have been deleted -- remember it's AskMe and not MeTa so we can't just close questions -- just because the asker was being a pain in the ass after people were bugging her for her question? I had mixed feelings about that question from the get-go and it's another example of "XYZ sucks AMIRITE" which maybe we should be a little stricter on to begin with.
We have different sorts of flags generally because things need different sort of attention. "Poster is being disengenuous" doesn't need a special flag because there's nothing on our end to be done about it, really. We can't read minds and we presume good faithso unless the flags are a way of saying "something needs deleting/fixing/watching/sidebarring" there's not much of a reason to make a new flag for it. If you don't like the questions, it's okay to register your protest by not answering them or coming to MeTa to bitch, but these sorts of questions don't come up that often and even when they do, there's not much to be done about them except dislike them and keep an eye on the poster to make sure they don't make a habit of bad questions.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:17 PM on January 30, 2008
Trust me, it really wouldn't.
The Gooch, in the example that you give, what should have been done? Should the question have been deleted -- remember it's AskMe and not MeTa so we can't just close questions -- just because the asker was being a pain in the ass after people were bugging her for her question? I had mixed feelings about that question from the get-go and it's another example of "XYZ sucks AMIRITE" which maybe we should be a little stricter on to begin with.
We have different sorts of flags generally because things need different sort of attention. "Poster is being disengenuous" doesn't need a special flag because there's nothing on our end to be done about it, really. We can't read minds and we presume good faithso unless the flags are a way of saying "something needs deleting/fixing/watching/sidebarring" there's not much of a reason to make a new flag for it. If you don't like the questions, it's okay to register your protest by not answering them or coming to MeTa to bitch, but these sorts of questions don't come up that often and even when they do, there's not much to be done about them except dislike them and keep an eye on the poster to make sure they don't make a habit of bad questions.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:17 PM on January 30, 2008
There's always adding an "It will be obvious what's wrong when you look at it" flag...
posted by davejay at 10:46 PM on January 30, 2008
posted by davejay at 10:46 PM on January 30, 2008
Which is pretty much what I flag as "other". The "other" flag covers a hell a lot of ground, including "totallybatshitinsane" which might not necessarily break the guidelines...
posted by Phire at 11:18 PM on January 30, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Phire at 11:18 PM on January 30, 2008 [1 favorite]
What's with everyone's crapping in the question? Yeah it was chatfilter, but it's just as much against the rules to shit up an AskMe thread.
posted by ODiV at 11:37 PM on January 30, 2008
posted by ODiV at 11:37 PM on January 30, 2008
jessamyn, I would definitely err on the side of keeping things open as you suggest. I was just wanting to clarify bingo's point with an example of what I think he's talking about - questions that don't appear to be breaking the guidelines by virtue of the question itself, but maybe are when the asker's intent becomes more clear.
posted by The Gooch at 12:06 AM on January 31, 2008
posted by The Gooch at 12:06 AM on January 31, 2008
How do I flag thee? Let me count the ways...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:15 AM on January 31, 2008
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:15 AM on January 31, 2008
How about just a flag called "Stupid"? This would cover one-link youtube links and similar.
posted by chillmost at 6:30 AM on January 31, 2008
posted by chillmost at 6:30 AM on January 31, 2008
And in such cases, let's face it, the thread doesn't get closed, because it's impossible to prove that the guidelines have been broken.
We don't have to prove the guidelines have been broken. This isn't a criminal innocent-until-proven-guilty-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt court.
I believe in the past Jessamyn has occasionally worked with a poster to re-write one of these rant-thinly-disguised-as-a-question posts to be more question, less rant. I know that's more work for Jessamyn, but I'd like to see more of that in these cases, or else a greater willingness to simply delete rants-thinly-disguised-as-questions.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:02 AM on January 31, 2008
We don't have to prove the guidelines have been broken. This isn't a criminal innocent-until-proven-guilty-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt court.
I believe in the past Jessamyn has occasionally worked with a poster to re-write one of these rant-thinly-disguised-as-a-question posts to be more question, less rant. I know that's more work for Jessamyn, but I'd like to see more of that in these cases, or else a greater willingness to simply delete rants-thinly-disguised-as-questions.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:02 AM on January 31, 2008
What's with everyone's crapping in the question? Yeah it was chatfilter, but it's just as much against the rules to shit up an AskMe thread.
Bears repeating. Flag it and move on, people—breaking the guidelines is breaking the guidelines, even if you're feeling gleeful in your certainty of a pending deletion. Civil explanations of why it's going to be deleted maybe not so much of a problem, but lay off the snark.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:15 AM on January 31, 2008
Bears repeating. Flag it and move on, people—breaking the guidelines is breaking the guidelines, even if you're feeling gleeful in your certainty of a pending deletion. Civil explanations of why it's going to be deleted maybe not so much of a problem, but lay off the snark.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:15 AM on January 31, 2008
(That said, I've cleaned out most of the noise now.)
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:19 AM on January 31, 2008
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:19 AM on January 31, 2008
No, no, I really do want to piss through the urinal cake.
posted by klangklangston at 9:45 AM on January 31, 2008
posted by klangklangston at 9:45 AM on January 31, 2008
The question:
Is it illegal for a business to close earlier than the closing time posted on their door?
Later in the thread, the asker says this:
People, I don't care whether it's illegal or not. I didn't want to hear that it was or any other particular answer...
I flagged it right after I had read the question and moved on. Now I'm just surprised that the question is still standing almost a month later, especially as the whole thread got slightly out of hand. Not a big deal, but irritating nonetheless.
posted by slimepuppy at 9:51 AM on January 31, 2008
Is it illegal for a business to close earlier than the closing time posted on their door?
Later in the thread, the asker says this:
People, I don't care whether it's illegal or not. I didn't want to hear that it was or any other particular answer...
I flagged it right after I had read the question and moved on. Now I'm just surprised that the question is still standing almost a month later, especially as the whole thread got slightly out of hand. Not a big deal, but irritating nonetheless.
posted by slimepuppy at 9:51 AM on January 31, 2008
There are eight options for a reason and they're general so they cover as much ground as possible, to make the feature as easy to use as possible. We could probably reduce it further to just five or six, tops with a bit of more editing. Less is more in this case.
Why not reduce it to just "good" and "bad"? Usually, as you have stated multiple times, the problem is obvious, and there is always the contact form for those who really want to say more.
posted by TedW at 10:44 AM on January 31, 2008
Why not reduce it to just "good" and "bad"? Usually, as you have stated multiple times, the problem is obvious, and there is always the contact form for those who really want to say more.
posted by TedW at 10:44 AM on January 31, 2008
Fill-in-the-blank flags would be sweet.
This post flagged as: "Hey guys, what's up? It's just me, shmegegge, again. How's things? Anyway, have a nice day!"
posted by shmegegge at 11:04 AM on January 31, 2008
This post flagged as: "Hey guys, what's up? It's just me, shmegegge, again. How's things? Anyway, have a nice day!"
posted by shmegegge at 11:04 AM on January 31, 2008
How about just a flag called "Stupid"?
Flagged as "Stupid".
posted by timeistight at 11:07 AM on January 31, 2008
Flagged as "Stupid".
posted by timeistight at 11:07 AM on January 31, 2008
Later in the thread, the asker says this:
People, I don't care whether it's illegal or not.
The context makes it fairly clear she means "I don't care whether it's illegal or not," in the sense of "I don't have a preference for it being legal or illegal" (even if her other comments in the thread cast doubt on the veracity of that), not in the sense of "I don't want to know whether it's legal or illegal." Yeah, I agree that thread is a wreck overall, but it's going overboard to suggest she didn't want to know at all about the legality of closing early.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:33 AM on January 31, 2008
People, I don't care whether it's illegal or not.
The context makes it fairly clear she means "I don't care whether it's illegal or not," in the sense of "I don't have a preference for it being legal or illegal" (even if her other comments in the thread cast doubt on the veracity of that), not in the sense of "I don't want to know whether it's legal or illegal." Yeah, I agree that thread is a wreck overall, but it's going overboard to suggest she didn't want to know at all about the legality of closing early.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:33 AM on January 31, 2008
The ability to add, say, 20 - 30 characters of comment to "other" would be appreciated. You don't have to read my comments, but I'd like the chance to make them.
posted by theora55 at 11:53 AM on January 31, 2008
posted by theora55 at 11:53 AM on January 31, 2008
Hell, it could still show up in the flag pile as 'other', but we'd get to feel like speshul widdl' snowflakes. Made of win, amirite?
posted by Phire at 1:46 PM on January 31, 2008
posted by Phire at 1:46 PM on January 31, 2008
Questions where the OP just wants people to agree with them belong in Metatalk, not AskMe.
Amirite?
The OP may want people to agree with him, but I have the feeling the people in MeTa don't.
posted by ersatz at 2:59 PM on January 31, 2008
Amirite?
The OP may want people to agree with him, but I have the feeling the people in MeTa don't.
posted by ersatz at 2:59 PM on January 31, 2008
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:58 PM on January 30, 2008