Closing an AskMeta June 17, 2024 10:28 AM Subscribe
What is the situation with a person closing their own AskMeta when they no longer need more responses, especially when there's a pile up going on?
Marking a question as resolved indicates that the person considers the question to be resolved, but it doesn't prevent more answers, correct?
I fairly often see pile ons in AskMeta, and also indications that people are worried that they'll get piled up on - requests in the question to "please don't scold me" or "please answer this aspect and not that".
Sure, people could just stop looking at answers, but many questions are about mental health or other painful issues where just the existence of a continuing pile on can cause distress and drive people away from the site, or make them less likely to ask questions at all.
I assume there's a way to close AskMetas, by asking a mod. But 1)people might not know that, 2) it might take quite a long time for a mod to see such a request and respond.
Assuming people agree that a person should be able to close an AskMeta question and make that decision themselves, is there a way to make that process easier?
Maybe "mark as resolved" closes the question?
Marking a question as resolved indicates that the person considers the question to be resolved, but it doesn't prevent more answers, correct?
I fairly often see pile ons in AskMeta, and also indications that people are worried that they'll get piled up on - requests in the question to "please don't scold me" or "please answer this aspect and not that".
Sure, people could just stop looking at answers, but many questions are about mental health or other painful issues where just the existence of a continuing pile on can cause distress and drive people away from the site, or make them less likely to ask questions at all.
I assume there's a way to close AskMetas, by asking a mod. But 1)people might not know that, 2) it might take quite a long time for a mod to see such a request and respond.
Assuming people agree that a person should be able to close an AskMeta question and make that decision themselves, is there a way to make that process easier?
Maybe "mark as resolved" closes the question?
I think some people mark best answer and then expect answers to keep coming in, if we have to teach them out of that behavior we may as well teach them how to contact the mods to close a question that’s going off the rails instead. And it looks like there may be technical issues as well with changing current site behavior.
But to your point it is something to keep an eye out for. Messages could be sent to the poster to let them know to use the contact form.
posted by Vatnesine at 11:12 AM on June 17 [1 favorite]
But to your point it is something to keep an eye out for. Messages could be sent to the poster to let them know to use the contact form.
posted by Vatnesine at 11:12 AM on June 17 [1 favorite]
The noticed the issue with one recent AskMe -- it had been quite a pile on and then all of a sudden it was gone. I assume the poster asked for it to be deleted, though I also thought it was an anonymous and I'm not sure how asking to have a post closed when it isn't known who posted it works, so maybe it was something else?
One thing I did notice is that it still appears in my Recent Activity and my answers are in my list of favourited comments by the links don't work. So when the coders get around to refactoring deletions vs. thread closures, maybe they could also refactor how deleted a deleted thing is. If you want to leave them in people's history because you don't want to delete their words unnecessarily, perhaps replace the links with something that indicates it is deleted rather than just having broken links would be better than the current situation. Also, having an indication that something was there but has been deleted might be more informative than just a generic error page.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:26 AM on June 17 [4 favorites]
One thing I did notice is that it still appears in my Recent Activity and my answers are in my list of favourited comments by the links don't work. So when the coders get around to refactoring deletions vs. thread closures, maybe they could also refactor how deleted a deleted thing is. If you want to leave them in people's history because you don't want to delete their words unnecessarily, perhaps replace the links with something that indicates it is deleted rather than just having broken links would be better than the current situation. Also, having an indication that something was there but has been deleted might be more informative than just a generic error page.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:26 AM on June 17 [4 favorites]
@loup: but old AskMes are always closed - as in very old. Why is this?
posted by lokta at 11:38 AM on June 17
posted by lokta at 11:38 AM on June 17
jacquilynne, I believe that's due to a relatively recent policy of more aggressive deletions of either anon questions or AskMes more generally - they're certain ones are wiped entirely, so that they're not retrievable with just the ID number, for privacy reasons. Agreed that comments associate with such posts should be deleted everywhere, and that a more clear error page would be good.
If you're talking about the anon question I think you are, there's quite a bit of discussion of it at the end of the "Team Threaded Comments" post.
posted by sagc at 11:39 AM on June 17
If you're talking about the anon question I think you are, there's quite a bit of discussion of it at the end of the "Team Threaded Comments" post.
posted by sagc at 11:39 AM on June 17
The comments are still in Popular Favorites, too, so I think that post is an outlier. Back on the original topic, I agree that we need to have a clearly defined difference for the users on marking a question resolved and saying you don't want any more answers.
People say they are "closing the thread" when they just mean they're marking it resolved, but that is likely due to the confusion. Threads close after X time or from mod intervention, but they are not always deleted after mods close them. The time and policies differ for each subsite, so confusion is understandable.
posted by soelo at 11:57 AM on June 17 [1 favorite]
People say they are "closing the thread" when they just mean they're marking it resolved, but that is likely due to the confusion. Threads close after X time or from mod intervention, but they are not always deleted after mods close them. The time and policies differ for each subsite, so confusion is understandable.
posted by soelo at 11:57 AM on June 17 [1 favorite]
Metatalk is currently the only part of the site that has the ability of closing threads to new comments without deleting the thread.
Not entirely true? Threads close after some time has passed, automatically, I presume. So the ability exists, or there wouldn't be an archive. Could you clarify what you mean?
posted by donnagirl at 12:10 PM on June 17 [5 favorites]
Not entirely true? Threads close after some time has passed, automatically, I presume. So the ability exists, or there wouldn't be an archive. Could you clarify what you mean?
posted by donnagirl at 12:10 PM on June 17 [5 favorites]
AskMe isn't and shouldn't be treated as therapy. People can remove their questions from their Recent Activity and that'll be that unless they intentionally seek it out.
posted by Diskeater at 12:19 PM on June 17 [15 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 12:19 PM on June 17 [15 favorites]
I don't necessarily agree that a person should be able to close their AskMe themselves.
There's a balance between encouraging people to post questions and encouraging people to post answers, and between making AskMe useful for the asker, for other site members, and for people who may come along and read things later.
I don't necessarily disagree that people should be able to close their AskMes, either, but it seems like a fairly large change, one where it's worth considering the ripple effects.
posted by box at 12:24 PM on June 17 [3 favorites]
There's a balance between encouraging people to post questions and encouraging people to post answers, and between making AskMe useful for the asker, for other site members, and for people who may come along and read things later.
I don't necessarily disagree that people should be able to close their AskMes, either, but it seems like a fairly large change, one where it's worth considering the ripple effects.
posted by box at 12:24 PM on June 17 [3 favorites]
And that, as I understand it, is mainly an anti-spam measure, as most really late arriving replies are just spam anyway.
posted by jacquilynne at 1:03 PM on June 17 [3 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 1:03 PM on June 17 [3 favorites]
“ Metatalk is currently the only part of the site that has the ability of closing threads to new comments without deleting the thread”
This isn’t true though, right? Every AskMe I’ve ever posted is closed now because they were posted more than a year ago. But none of them are deleted.
posted by kate blank at 1:08 PM on June 17 [3 favorites]
This isn’t true though, right? Every AskMe I’ve ever posted is closed now because they were posted more than a year ago. But none of them are deleted.
posted by kate blank at 1:08 PM on June 17 [3 favorites]
Could you clarify what you mean?
There's currently no built tool that allows moderators to close a thread on the site anywhere but in MeTa and IRL.
Threads do auto-close (i.e. the system closes them) and in AskMe one of the reasons for the one year closure date is because we noticed, way back when, drive-by spammers would leave comments with a lot of spammy links in threads that were no longer active. There's a back-end mod tool for checking for "straggling comments" in AskMe that was built with this in mind. These closure dates-by-subsite sort of grew organically. They're listed on the FAQ.
So threads can be open, closed by the system, closed by a mod (MeTa & IRL only currently), deleted but visible, or deleted-404. Thanks for bringing to our attention that the deleted-404 option has some broken bits to it. My personal opinions are more along the lines of Diskeater and box but we wanted to see what the community thought.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:10 PM on June 17 [5 favorites]
There's currently no built tool that allows moderators to close a thread on the site anywhere but in MeTa and IRL.
Threads do auto-close (i.e. the system closes them) and in AskMe one of the reasons for the one year closure date is because we noticed, way back when, drive-by spammers would leave comments with a lot of spammy links in threads that were no longer active. There's a back-end mod tool for checking for "straggling comments" in AskMe that was built with this in mind. These closure dates-by-subsite sort of grew organically. They're listed on the FAQ.
So threads can be open, closed by the system, closed by a mod (MeTa & IRL only currently), deleted but visible, or deleted-404. Thanks for bringing to our attention that the deleted-404 option has some broken bits to it. My personal opinions are more along the lines of Diskeater and box but we wanted to see what the community thought.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:10 PM on June 17 [5 favorites]
I see two issues here.
1. User editing of content. MetaFilter is against this, on balance. I’m down for a discussion about that, but I don’t think Ask should be treated separately.
2. Pile ons. This is a cultural problem we have only intermittently solved, as well as an inadvertent UI byproduct resulting from a lack of mute/block/thread-type features. I wish it happened less frequently, but, again, I do not think Ask should be treated separately. We should care for all of us, all the time—not just the people struggling on Ask.
posted by cupcakeninja at 1:48 PM on June 17
1. User editing of content. MetaFilter is against this, on balance. I’m down for a discussion about that, but I don’t think Ask should be treated separately.
2. Pile ons. This is a cultural problem we have only intermittently solved, as well as an inadvertent UI byproduct resulting from a lack of mute/block/thread-type features. I wish it happened less frequently, but, again, I do not think Ask should be treated separately. We should care for all of us, all the time—not just the people struggling on Ask.
posted by cupcakeninja at 1:48 PM on June 17
I'm not sure what the point of keeping flame-bait around is? What is the downside of deleting the question?
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 2:19 PM on June 17 [1 favorite]
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 2:19 PM on June 17 [1 favorite]
I am opposed to users (askers) being able to close their questions to future answers. I can see reducing the time they auto lock, but not at the whim of the poster. As for "pile ons" contact a moderator.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 3:21 PM on June 17 [7 favorites]
posted by JohnnyGunn at 3:21 PM on June 17 [7 favorites]
I am opposed to users (askers) being able to close their questions to future answers.
Me too. This is like the Reddit thing where people ask a question, get an answer, then delete their question. It's aggressively anti-community.
posted by mmoncur at 5:10 PM on June 17 [14 favorites]
Me too. This is like the Reddit thing where people ask a question, get an answer, then delete their question. It's aggressively anti-community.
posted by mmoncur at 5:10 PM on June 17 [14 favorites]
If we are allowing users more tools for managing conversations, I personally would prefer block/mute functionality over Ask closures - then Askers could block or mute answers that they didn't want to read, but those would remain visible for the community as a whole.
This is probably a very Gen-X answer but I kind of prefer that askers have a small amount of skin in the game when they post, meaning that if they change their minds they have to ask a mod. (I'm assuming those requests are generally addressed.)
I try not to invest much in answering asks because like, it's an act of - generosity seems overblown but it's something I try to do in the spirit of putting good energy out there - like prayer but more practical. I try to do it without expectation.
But even so, if I felt like the askers were in general likely to delete the question at any point, I think that would dampen my enthusiasm. It would feel like I was investing more in the question than they were.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:38 PM on June 17 [2 favorites]
This is probably a very Gen-X answer but I kind of prefer that askers have a small amount of skin in the game when they post, meaning that if they change their minds they have to ask a mod. (I'm assuming those requests are generally addressed.)
I try not to invest much in answering asks because like, it's an act of - generosity seems overblown but it's something I try to do in the spirit of putting good energy out there - like prayer but more practical. I try to do it without expectation.
But even so, if I felt like the askers were in general likely to delete the question at any point, I think that would dampen my enthusiasm. It would feel like I was investing more in the question than they were.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:38 PM on June 17 [2 favorites]
I am opposed to users (askers) being able to close their questions to future answers.
As am I. The most useful part about AskMe is the resource it provides to the community, on top of the obvious benefit to the person asking.
I could see benefit in closing them earlier by default, but allowing the asker to re-open to provide updates (within reason), but that hardly seems likely.
posted by dg at 6:48 PM on June 17
As am I. The most useful part about AskMe is the resource it provides to the community, on top of the obvious benefit to the person asking.
I could see benefit in closing them earlier by default, but allowing the asker to re-open to provide updates (within reason), but that hardly seems likely.
posted by dg at 6:48 PM on June 17
The noticed the issue with one recent AskMe -- it had been quite a pile on and then all of a sudden it was gone. I assume the poster asked for it to be deleted, though I also thought it was an anonymous and I'm not sure how asking to have a post closed when it isn't known who posted it works, so maybe it was something else?
I'd be interested in understanding the context behind this situation, too - I know exactly the question you're referring to, and I was surprised it was posted in the first place.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 4:37 AM on June 18
I'd be interested in understanding the context behind this situation, too - I know exactly the question you're referring to, and I was surprised it was posted in the first place.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 4:37 AM on June 18
There's some talk about that question in this MeTa (starting around the link).
posted by box at 5:23 AM on June 18 [1 favorite]
posted by box at 5:23 AM on June 18 [1 favorite]
Thanks, box!
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 5:33 AM on June 18 [1 favorite]
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 5:33 AM on June 18 [1 favorite]
I am much less bothered by the idea of users being allowed to close their own AskMes than I am about the idea of users being able to delete their own AskMes, and these days I'm not even terribly bothered by that, either.
Yeah, it's kinda annoying and takes info away from the community, but requiring that users open themselves up to a pile-on with no way to self-manage the fall out of a bad post is also anti-community and in my opinion, in a much more damaging way than losing questions that probably aren't that useful and informative for others anyway.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:18 AM on June 18 [6 favorites]
Yeah, it's kinda annoying and takes info away from the community, but requiring that users open themselves up to a pile-on with no way to self-manage the fall out of a bad post is also anti-community and in my opinion, in a much more damaging way than losing questions that probably aren't that useful and informative for others anyway.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:18 AM on June 18 [6 favorites]
jacquilynne exactly.
It's the silent damage that concerns me.
Apart from the asker, there's also all those people searching AskMeta for answers to similar issues they're experiencing and finding an endless scolding pile on.
posted by Zumbador at 7:24 AM on June 18 [2 favorites]
It's the silent damage that concerns me.
Apart from the asker, there's also all those people searching AskMeta for answers to similar issues they're experiencing and finding an endless scolding pile on.
posted by Zumbador at 7:24 AM on June 18 [2 favorites]
We already have rules about answers that are mean, or unhelpful, or don't address the question.
In the same way that a weed is a plant growing where someone doesn't want it to be, a pile-on is more than one person telling someone something they don't want to hear.
posted by box at 7:34 AM on June 18 [4 favorites]
In the same way that a weed is a plant growing where someone doesn't want it to be, a pile-on is more than one person telling someone something they don't want to hear.
posted by box at 7:34 AM on June 18 [4 favorites]
I think the current system of mods deleting questions at the request of the OP is working just fine.
I also think it happens rarely enough that it barely matters, although the mods may have a different opinion about it.
From a utilitarian perspective a post that is getting a pile-on by definition concerns something that virtually everyone knows but the OP, and the OP now knows. Leaving flame bait questions up will only benefit the tiny portion of humanity who a) doesn’t know and b) came to Metafilter to research it.
The flipside is that something that will hurt people or simply get their blood boiling is left in the archives. That is very much not what people come to Metafilter for.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:49 AM on June 18 [2 favorites]
I also think it happens rarely enough that it barely matters, although the mods may have a different opinion about it.
From a utilitarian perspective a post that is getting a pile-on by definition concerns something that virtually everyone knows but the OP, and the OP now knows. Leaving flame bait questions up will only benefit the tiny portion of humanity who a) doesn’t know and b) came to Metafilter to research it.
The flipside is that something that will hurt people or simply get their blood boiling is left in the archives. That is very much not what people come to Metafilter for.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:49 AM on June 18 [2 favorites]
We already have rules about answers that are mean, or unhelpful, or don't address the question.
And we have rules about questions--no chatfilter, for instance. We have no rule about wankfilter questions but they nevertheless are supersupersuper not welcome in the community, as the oft-mentioned pile-on in that oft-mentioned deleted thread may suggest. Don't write questions designed to trick users of this website into providing you with free fapfodder: more of a norm than a law.
posted by Don Pepino at 7:53 AM on June 18
And we have rules about questions--no chatfilter, for instance. We have no rule about wankfilter questions but they nevertheless are supersupersuper not welcome in the community, as the oft-mentioned pile-on in that oft-mentioned deleted thread may suggest. Don't write questions designed to trick users of this website into providing you with free fapfodder: more of a norm than a law.
posted by Don Pepino at 7:53 AM on June 18
how the deleted-but-visible and deleted-404 thing is supposed to be working?
Deleted is the norm. Deleted-404 is for the odd case where there is a legal or privacy concern or, in this case, we felt (after some discussion) that the question itself was a problem if it was still visible on the site even if deleted.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:37 AM on June 18 [4 favorites]
Deleted is the norm. Deleted-404 is for the odd case where there is a legal or privacy concern or, in this case, we felt (after some discussion) that the question itself was a problem if it was still visible on the site even if deleted.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:37 AM on June 18 [4 favorites]
And? Pretty sure "being about sex" wasn't exactly the problem with the previously-deleted anon question.
posted by sagc at 9:56 AM on June 19 [1 favorite]
posted by sagc at 9:56 AM on June 19 [1 favorite]
Me too. This is like the Reddit thing where people ask a question, get an answer, then delete their question. It's aggressively anti-community.
I'm genuinely confused as to why you think this is. I guess that all depends on who we think Askme is FOR. The asker, or other members of the community?
If it's for users as individuals looking to get answers to questions, then being able to close a post to future answers isn't anti-community. It's a community resource that's being used like it's supposed to be, someone had a question, they got answers, or figured out this wasn't going to provide solutions, and then the question gets closed up earlier than would happen automatically. All that effectively happened is that people aren't able to answer the question for as long as the default. Anti-community behavior would be something like asking questions that you know will cause fights, or intentionally giving bad answers, or any number of behaviors that make AskMe less useful.
If it's for future hypothetical future users with similar questions that maybe hasn't been answered yet, or people who REALLY want to answer the question, then yeah, preventing them from using the resource as they want is anti-community. Personally I value existing users over hypothetical so the first one isn't a huge concern, and while people who answer questions are what makes AskMe valuable, I would be amazed if answering a specific question has nearly the impact on a user as being able to feel confident asking the question does.
Like, super low stakes example from a decade ago, and separated from the specific question that spawned this: I asked about exercise things I could do with my kid, who thought it was a fun thing to do together. I mentioned that I am unable to do yoga for reasons. I got told that a)I shouldn't make my kid exercise (which I wasn't) and b)I should try YOGA. And like, as was, I kind of shrugged and realized that wasn't a question that was going to get a good answer. So I didn't ask questions in the future that had a similar feel, because nobody likes to be lectured to by folks who don't understand the question. In fact, it kind of turned me off on ask in general, and is part of why I hardly ever ask questions. Now, if I knew that I would have the ability to close the question if things got to ranting about whatever folks thought I was asking, that would totally change my mental calculus when choosing if I should post a question.
I think there's a very real tension in this site around the value of setting personal limits. Metafilter tends to cater to folks formed their internet philosophies when the thought of removing information and limiting the opportunity for conversation seemed antithetical to what the internet is FOR. Like I remember when this was all new and exciting and it was possible to be open and not feel like you were drinking straight from a firehose tapped into everyone else's id. For others, they have had to learn the necessity of being able filter and block interactions because they're members of a group that's frequently targeted, or because they only have so many hours in the day, or other reasons. That's a fundamental dissonance, and I don't know that there's a good resolution, let alone a right one.
posted by Gygesringtone at 11:57 AM on June 19 [2 favorites]
I'm genuinely confused as to why you think this is. I guess that all depends on who we think Askme is FOR. The asker, or other members of the community?
If it's for users as individuals looking to get answers to questions, then being able to close a post to future answers isn't anti-community. It's a community resource that's being used like it's supposed to be, someone had a question, they got answers, or figured out this wasn't going to provide solutions, and then the question gets closed up earlier than would happen automatically. All that effectively happened is that people aren't able to answer the question for as long as the default. Anti-community behavior would be something like asking questions that you know will cause fights, or intentionally giving bad answers, or any number of behaviors that make AskMe less useful.
If it's for future hypothetical future users with similar questions that maybe hasn't been answered yet, or people who REALLY want to answer the question, then yeah, preventing them from using the resource as they want is anti-community. Personally I value existing users over hypothetical so the first one isn't a huge concern, and while people who answer questions are what makes AskMe valuable, I would be amazed if answering a specific question has nearly the impact on a user as being able to feel confident asking the question does.
Like, super low stakes example from a decade ago, and separated from the specific question that spawned this: I asked about exercise things I could do with my kid, who thought it was a fun thing to do together. I mentioned that I am unable to do yoga for reasons. I got told that a)I shouldn't make my kid exercise (which I wasn't) and b)I should try YOGA. And like, as was, I kind of shrugged and realized that wasn't a question that was going to get a good answer. So I didn't ask questions in the future that had a similar feel, because nobody likes to be lectured to by folks who don't understand the question. In fact, it kind of turned me off on ask in general, and is part of why I hardly ever ask questions. Now, if I knew that I would have the ability to close the question if things got to ranting about whatever folks thought I was asking, that would totally change my mental calculus when choosing if I should post a question.
I think there's a very real tension in this site around the value of setting personal limits. Metafilter tends to cater to folks formed their internet philosophies when the thought of removing information and limiting the opportunity for conversation seemed antithetical to what the internet is FOR. Like I remember when this was all new and exciting and it was possible to be open and not feel like you were drinking straight from a firehose tapped into everyone else's id. For others, they have had to learn the necessity of being able filter and block interactions because they're members of a group that's frequently targeted, or because they only have so many hours in the day, or other reasons. That's a fundamental dissonance, and I don't know that there's a good resolution, let alone a right one.
posted by Gygesringtone at 11:57 AM on June 19 [2 favorites]
But we're talking about closing questions for new answers, not deleting it and the answers. The corpus of answers is still there. Are we really loosing that much knowledge when someone closes an answer after it has 20 answers telling them how wrong they are instead of 50? This is about making an option available INSTEAD of deleting the question, which is already doable (via contacting the mods) and happens pretty regularly. I mean, deletion is ALREADY an option. Like it or not, that's a thing folks can do.
posted by Gygesringtone at 2:48 PM on June 19 [2 favorites]
posted by Gygesringtone at 2:48 PM on June 19 [2 favorites]
I think we lose more than we gain when we let one person control the conversation.
I’m find with block/mute tools that help ppl manage their own experience. But giving one party the okay to close the thread who isn’t formally moderating doesn’t sit well with me. I think letting the asker treat the site as if it’s a slot machine just degrades the community element. You’re not asking an AI, you’re asking vibrant, opinion-filled, people, imperfect and in a group and public setting.
For example the yoga question. Sure, that’s annoying- but it is also human. If your time is so precious that reading a wrong answer puts you off, I’m not sure I want to be at the other end of your Entire Day. Maybe it’s good to post questions when we’re ready for imperfect answers rather than trying to control all the parameters so we never feel a twinge of annoyance. I know I’ve blown it reading details wise. I really don’t want to engage in a community where there isn’t some margin for error or misunderstanding.
I also can see a lot of spin off effects. The last answerer will have to wonder if it was their answer that caused the asker to close the thread. Maybe that’s good, but right now the site sort of depends on more answers than questions.
I also think that it’s good for people to take time to think and answer - I don’t always do this, see above - but if questions are getting closed a lot, I wouldn’t bother taking my time because I come back and it’s closed. Also, there seems to be an assumption the asker is reading in real time and will close a question before X remarks are made which…seems odd? What if they don’t check for 48 hours? Is it somehow worse? I would like to see more tools to slow down responses, not accelerate them.
And - here’s the gen x bit - I think it sets up a very large gap between expectations and reality if you try to make a public website (visibility) with a low barrier to participation responsible for the people having a constantly good or safe time. You can say, we have values, we work at inclusion, we try to answer things helpfully, or norms around deletion are xYZ.
But if you are trying to ensure that every question, every post, will go the way the asker or poster wants; that the values will always be perfectly enacted, etc., that’s a huge reality gap. Right now, people can read some questions before posting and see pile ups and then decide if they want to engage. If we start closing questions at will, someone who walks away for 48 hours may have a rude shock.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:32 PM on June 19 [4 favorites]
I’m find with block/mute tools that help ppl manage their own experience. But giving one party the okay to close the thread who isn’t formally moderating doesn’t sit well with me. I think letting the asker treat the site as if it’s a slot machine just degrades the community element. You’re not asking an AI, you’re asking vibrant, opinion-filled, people, imperfect and in a group and public setting.
For example the yoga question. Sure, that’s annoying- but it is also human. If your time is so precious that reading a wrong answer puts you off, I’m not sure I want to be at the other end of your Entire Day. Maybe it’s good to post questions when we’re ready for imperfect answers rather than trying to control all the parameters so we never feel a twinge of annoyance. I know I’ve blown it reading details wise. I really don’t want to engage in a community where there isn’t some margin for error or misunderstanding.
I also can see a lot of spin off effects. The last answerer will have to wonder if it was their answer that caused the asker to close the thread. Maybe that’s good, but right now the site sort of depends on more answers than questions.
I also think that it’s good for people to take time to think and answer - I don’t always do this, see above - but if questions are getting closed a lot, I wouldn’t bother taking my time because I come back and it’s closed. Also, there seems to be an assumption the asker is reading in real time and will close a question before X remarks are made which…seems odd? What if they don’t check for 48 hours? Is it somehow worse? I would like to see more tools to slow down responses, not accelerate them.
And - here’s the gen x bit - I think it sets up a very large gap between expectations and reality if you try to make a public website (visibility) with a low barrier to participation responsible for the people having a constantly good or safe time. You can say, we have values, we work at inclusion, we try to answer things helpfully, or norms around deletion are xYZ.
But if you are trying to ensure that every question, every post, will go the way the asker or poster wants; that the values will always be perfectly enacted, etc., that’s a huge reality gap. Right now, people can read some questions before posting and see pile ups and then decide if they want to engage. If we start closing questions at will, someone who walks away for 48 hours may have a rude shock.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:32 PM on June 19 [4 favorites]
Given that the asker doesn't know what the answer is by definition, I think it's unhelpful for them to also get to decide when the question has been answered in full. Just because they feel they have found one or more best answers, doesn't mean the question actually has been answered.
It's not at all unusual for mods to need to remind askers that they shouldn't back and forth they can just take what they want from the answers freely given. In that sense, once you pose the question, the site culture already is that it doesn't belong solely to you it also belongs to the community.
I think separately, sometimes people regret having asked a question? If it's a serious regret they can ask a mod to delete it. If they just don't want to read more answers to it, they can just not look at it.
posted by plonkee at 4:11 AM on June 20
It's not at all unusual for mods to need to remind askers that they shouldn't back and forth they can just take what they want from the answers freely given. In that sense, once you pose the question, the site culture already is that it doesn't belong solely to you it also belongs to the community.
I think separately, sometimes people regret having asked a question? If it's a serious regret they can ask a mod to delete it. If they just don't want to read more answers to it, they can just not look at it.
posted by plonkee at 4:11 AM on June 20
I think we lose more than we gain when we let one person control the conversation...
I mean, my problem is still that we already have an option that does this, and it's a lot more destructive than the one being proposed. I don't spend a heck of a lot of time on the Green, and I definitely have seen a few "post deleted at user's request" boxes pop up when I refreshed a page. Maybe I just have good timing, or am good at spotting drama and I happen to catch them every time it happens, but I kind of doubt that.
Also, there's a whole lot of middle ground between "the post stays open until it automatically closes" and "it's completely at the whim of the user". We've got an "edit" function for fixing typos. I was around when it was implemented and there were a LOT of words spent on if it would lead to people making huge edits and completely changing the meaning of their posts. It happened a couple of times, the mods reverted the changes\deleted the comment and left a public "knock it off" note, and it got embedded in site culture that it was just for typos. (I have seen some very rare "oh shit, I messed up, I'm sorry!" which seems like an ok occasional use). It's totally doable for a tool to exist and have limitations on what it's used for, even though it could be abused.
I'm not super attached to the idea or anything, but I do think it would probably make Ask more friendly for the people actually asking the question, and might reduce pile-ons. Heck, if we the implementation ended up looking like the process for contacting the mods about deleting the question, I'd be o.k. with that extra friction. I mostly just thought it was very odd that people were treating the ability to close an ask like it was as destructive as deleting the question. Especially since deleting the question is already a thing that's done at the user's request.
posted by Gygesringtone at 6:22 AM on June 20 [1 favorite]
I mean, my problem is still that we already have an option that does this, and it's a lot more destructive than the one being proposed. I don't spend a heck of a lot of time on the Green, and I definitely have seen a few "post deleted at user's request" boxes pop up when I refreshed a page. Maybe I just have good timing, or am good at spotting drama and I happen to catch them every time it happens, but I kind of doubt that.
Also, there's a whole lot of middle ground between "the post stays open until it automatically closes" and "it's completely at the whim of the user". We've got an "edit" function for fixing typos. I was around when it was implemented and there were a LOT of words spent on if it would lead to people making huge edits and completely changing the meaning of their posts. It happened a couple of times, the mods reverted the changes\deleted the comment and left a public "knock it off" note, and it got embedded in site culture that it was just for typos. (I have seen some very rare "oh shit, I messed up, I'm sorry!" which seems like an ok occasional use). It's totally doable for a tool to exist and have limitations on what it's used for, even though it could be abused.
I'm not super attached to the idea or anything, but I do think it would probably make Ask more friendly for the people actually asking the question, and might reduce pile-ons. Heck, if we the implementation ended up looking like the process for contacting the mods about deleting the question, I'd be o.k. with that extra friction. I mostly just thought it was very odd that people were treating the ability to close an ask like it was as destructive as deleting the question. Especially since deleting the question is already a thing that's done at the user's request.
posted by Gygesringtone at 6:22 AM on June 20 [1 favorite]
Given that the asker doesn't know what the answer is by definition, I think it's unhelpful for them to also get to decide when the question has been answered in full. Just because they feel they have found one or more best answers, doesn't mean the question actually has been answered.
They want to know 'what was that book I read?' and someone tells them and they're like 'yep, that's it for sure'.
They want to know how to fix a technical problem and they get a solution and it does what they want.
They want advice on how to deal with a situation that is happening imminently and now, for better or for worse, they have done the thing.
Those are just some top of my head examples of where a question asker can absolutely know the question has been answered.
Overall, I find it kind of interesting that in general, MetaFilter's stance is 'better user control of their own information' and 'protect people from assholes on the Internet' but when the discussion is about what MetaFilter should do, the position is much more 'we have to preserve the archives!' and 'what about the rest of the community?' I don't know if there are actual individuals who are holding those specific discordant views or if its just different people self-selecting into each type of conversation, but it just seems like the overall trend in each facet of the conversation.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:08 AM on June 20 [2 favorites]
They want to know 'what was that book I read?' and someone tells them and they're like 'yep, that's it for sure'.
They want to know how to fix a technical problem and they get a solution and it does what they want.
They want advice on how to deal with a situation that is happening imminently and now, for better or for worse, they have done the thing.
Those are just some top of my head examples of where a question asker can absolutely know the question has been answered.
Overall, I find it kind of interesting that in general, MetaFilter's stance is 'better user control of their own information' and 'protect people from assholes on the Internet' but when the discussion is about what MetaFilter should do, the position is much more 'we have to preserve the archives!' and 'what about the rest of the community?' I don't know if there are actual individuals who are holding those specific discordant views or if its just different people self-selecting into each type of conversation, but it just seems like the overall trend in each facet of the conversation.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:08 AM on June 20 [2 favorites]
Jacquilynne – For me, it’s similar to people that try to moderate their own FPPs. They are the ones that posted to the front page but after that it’s not really ‘their post’ to control how they see fit.
AskMe is a community resource and I feel that allowing people to close their own posts goes against that a bit. If a post is getting too spicy they can contact a mod or take a tip from Mr. Paul Anka.
posted by Diskeater at 7:33 AM on June 20 [1 favorite]
AskMe is a community resource and I feel that allowing people to close their own posts goes against that a bit. If a post is getting too spicy they can contact a mod or take a tip from Mr. Paul Anka.
posted by Diskeater at 7:33 AM on June 20 [1 favorite]
I mostly just thought it was very odd that people were treating the ability to close an ask like it was as destructive as deleting the question. Especially since deleting the question is already a thing that's done at the user's request.
Makes sense as a perspective.
I was thinking about this more and it still cements my opinion that there would be a lot of ripple effects. I can see worse pile-ons because “if the poster doesn’t want to hear it they should close the thread,” and I am not convinced people will walk away from closed questions feeling better that they closed it.
Where what I’ve seen in forums that allow self deletions is less thoughtfulness at both ends on the conversation.
Overall, I find it kind of interesting that in general, MetaFilter's stance is 'better user control of their own information' and 'protect people from assholes on the Internet' but when the discussion is about what MetaFilter should do, the position is much more 'we have to preserve the archives!'
One again, there is a big difference between “tools that me control what I see” and “if you break these specific community norms your comment will be deleted” and tools that allow people to end a post/question/conversation for everyone else for any reason they like.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:17 AM on June 20 [1 favorite]
Makes sense as a perspective.
I was thinking about this more and it still cements my opinion that there would be a lot of ripple effects. I can see worse pile-ons because “if the poster doesn’t want to hear it they should close the thread,” and I am not convinced people will walk away from closed questions feeling better that they closed it.
Where what I’ve seen in forums that allow self deletions is less thoughtfulness at both ends on the conversation.
Overall, I find it kind of interesting that in general, MetaFilter's stance is 'better user control of their own information' and 'protect people from assholes on the Internet' but when the discussion is about what MetaFilter should do, the position is much more 'we have to preserve the archives!'
One again, there is a big difference between “tools that me control what I see” and “if you break these specific community norms your comment will be deleted” and tools that allow people to end a post/question/conversation for everyone else for any reason they like.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:17 AM on June 20 [1 favorite]
I find 'Just Don't Look' very frustrating as a solution. Maybe I just personally lack self-control and everyone else can do this just fine, but if I know there are a bunch of people saying shitty things about me, I'm not going to be able to just not look. It would probably be healthier if I could just not look but that's not plausible for me.
I think the FPP and AskMe scenarios are extremely different. A question on AskMe, especially a personal question about your mental health or relationships is much, much more personal than an FPP about something you saw on the Internet, even if it is a subject or issue you personally care about.
One again, there is a big difference between “tools that me control what I see” and “if you break these specific community norms your comment will be deleted” and tools that allow people to end a post/question/conversation for everyone else for any reason they like.
There is a difference between those things, but they both exist out there in the broader world. I think AskMe posts are often *extremely* personal, and I think it would be fine to treat them like, say, Facebook posts where once I delete my Facebook posts all the comments are gone or less severely like a Reddit post (not sure this is universal on Reddit, might be a forum by forum setting) where I can delete the original post and the comments stay but people can't keep replying to them, rather than like a Thread where I delete something so my original post is gone but the conversation happening underneath it continues to rage on and people can continue to say shitty things about me even if I can't see them.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:26 AM on June 20 [1 favorite]
I think the FPP and AskMe scenarios are extremely different. A question on AskMe, especially a personal question about your mental health or relationships is much, much more personal than an FPP about something you saw on the Internet, even if it is a subject or issue you personally care about.
One again, there is a big difference between “tools that me control what I see” and “if you break these specific community norms your comment will be deleted” and tools that allow people to end a post/question/conversation for everyone else for any reason they like.
There is a difference between those things, but they both exist out there in the broader world. I think AskMe posts are often *extremely* personal, and I think it would be fine to treat them like, say, Facebook posts where once I delete my Facebook posts all the comments are gone or less severely like a Reddit post (not sure this is universal on Reddit, might be a forum by forum setting) where I can delete the original post and the comments stay but people can't keep replying to them, rather than like a Thread where I delete something so my original post is gone but the conversation happening underneath it continues to rage on and people can continue to say shitty things about me even if I can't see them.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:26 AM on June 20 [1 favorite]
I agree with warriorqueen that knowing that Asks might randomly close would incentivize hasty posting, especially on questions which are emotionally charged. Often when I read an Ask, especially a complex or sensitive one, and want to respond, I'll take some time (a few hours, half a day) to think about my perspective and decide whether it feels like it would be worthwhile to respond. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. But if I felt like I had to get my oar in or miss the chance? I'd like to think I'd resist the urge, but it feels like setting people up to fail.
"Derailing/ranting/axegrinding, picking a fight with or heavy chastising of the question asker, debating/chatting/arguing with other commenters" are already against AskMe rules (emphasis mine). There will naturally be some grey area between how the Asker feels about the responses and how the responders feel, especially for Asks that are personal or sensitive; this an unavoidable result of asking a question on a public forum.
Some questions have answers that may make us feel bad, but that doesn't necessarily mean the answers are bad. For example, sometimes people ask questions that are steeped in racist/sexist/whatever bias and there's not really a guaranteed "nice" way to say that, but it is kind (to my mind anyway) to say it.
This is not me saying "toughen up" or "grow a thicker skin," but trying to recognize the fact that in a diverse community there will be diverse perspectives, some of which conflict without either being wrong. Isn't hearing other perspectives the point of posting on AskMe in the first place?
posted by radiogreentea at 11:48 AM on June 20 [1 favorite]
"Derailing/ranting/axegrinding, picking a fight with or heavy chastising of the question asker, debating/chatting/arguing with other commenters" are already against AskMe rules (emphasis mine). There will naturally be some grey area between how the Asker feels about the responses and how the responders feel, especially for Asks that are personal or sensitive; this an unavoidable result of asking a question on a public forum.
Some questions have answers that may make us feel bad, but that doesn't necessarily mean the answers are bad. For example, sometimes people ask questions that are steeped in racist/sexist/whatever bias and there's not really a guaranteed "nice" way to say that, but it is kind (to my mind anyway) to say it.
This is not me saying "toughen up" or "grow a thicker skin," but trying to recognize the fact that in a diverse community there will be diverse perspectives, some of which conflict without either being wrong. Isn't hearing other perspectives the point of posting on AskMe in the first place?
posted by radiogreentea at 11:48 AM on June 20 [1 favorite]
Sorry for the late add to this set of Metas, but ...
As far as I can remember or see from the PDF that someone posted of the naked-roommate thread, I was the first person to call it out for its voyeurism (unless there were previous deleted comments).
As I read the thread up until then, I thought about why/how I was reading it at all; I expected that a mod had considered all the angles of its premise and decided to allow it. That's the kind of trust that users (others and I) have in mods on this site.
I just wanted to point out that when I wrote that comment, I felt *very* much like I was sticking my neck out in a way that is explicitly disallowed in AskMe. I fully expected my comment to disappear, and that I'd be on a mod's bad side as a result (but I felt compelled to write what I wrote anyway). It was ... hard to pull the trigger on.
In fact, that's how it appeared to go for a bit -- my post stayed, but there were several later ones that got yanked, and a mod note appeared about not insulting the OP. I wasn't surprised that the whole thing disappeared -- it indeed got worse and worse.
But I was surprised to come across the Metas about it, because as I said, I assumed it had been considered and allowed in good faith.
Deeply disappointed to find that it was not.
posted by Dashy at 4:07 PM on June 23 [2 favorites]
As far as I can remember or see from the PDF that someone posted of the naked-roommate thread, I was the first person to call it out for its voyeurism (unless there were previous deleted comments).
As I read the thread up until then, I thought about why/how I was reading it at all; I expected that a mod had considered all the angles of its premise and decided to allow it. That's the kind of trust that users (others and I) have in mods on this site.
I just wanted to point out that when I wrote that comment, I felt *very* much like I was sticking my neck out in a way that is explicitly disallowed in AskMe. I fully expected my comment to disappear, and that I'd be on a mod's bad side as a result (but I felt compelled to write what I wrote anyway). It was ... hard to pull the trigger on.
In fact, that's how it appeared to go for a bit -- my post stayed, but there were several later ones that got yanked, and a mod note appeared about not insulting the OP. I wasn't surprised that the whole thing disappeared -- it indeed got worse and worse.
But I was surprised to come across the Metas about it, because as I said, I assumed it had been considered and allowed in good faith.
Deeply disappointed to find that it was not.
posted by Dashy at 4:07 PM on June 23 [2 favorites]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by loup (staff) at 10:31 AM on June 17 [3 favorites]