Watching some of the moderator nomination comment threads, I get the mental image of a bucket brigade. And all the buckets contain gasoline.
I'm not terribly surprised or offended by those who are campaigning on a "salted earth" approach to moderation. The fact that they're choosing to take thos...
> It kinda sounds like you've correctly identified the problem, and then... Arrived at the status quo as the solution. Let's face it: as a community, your reputation for cruelty, snark, and general unhelpfulness is unmatched - even Programmers, which attracts far fewer questions per day and rejects nearly all of them, doesn't come close to generating the levels of straight-up vitriol that y'all do. [continued]
@AshleyNunn Its about keeping enough people in chat such that the delay between chat messages isn't more than a few hours at most during quiet times.
When I've poked some of the other beta site chats and see "last message 3 days ago" one wonders if there's any reason to say anything at all there.
On the other hand, if you see "last message 5 hours ago" and look back to see a lively bit of conversation earlier... well, that might be something to check in again - you just missed a recent party as it where.
@MichaelT Sometimes I feel like chat causes issues because it then becomes easy for one isolated group to think they get to make all the decisions and then when it doesn't go well, or people raise concern, it gets sticky fast. (I've seen this SO often on Gaming, where the core chat crowd gets really confused when people disagree, because they are so used to being the in crowd, and consider the chatters to be the "main" site people, when really, this isn't nearly as true as it would seem.)
I mean the whole point behind requiring 5 close votes for stuff is that in a truly random distribution, 5 truly random, independent people represents enough of a majority to close a question. The problem with chat is that it becomes hard to be independent
If you, @MichaelT post a question in chat and say that it's too broad, I'll give it a once over to make sure you're not off your rocker, but it's no where near the inspection I'd give something on the queue with only one close vote.
and while I recognize that that's not great, it's also because I trust your opinion on stuff like that
@AshleyNunn its a difficult issue. If the close queue was less than 20, I'd agree with you. If its above 20, the lack of prompt closes makes it harder to give the appropriate guidance to the person asking the question in a timely manner, or address issues in the question without answers to complicate it... or migrate it.
@MichaelT Which makes sense, I suppose, but at the same time, closing the question is not the only way to give guidance, and really, if the closing is the only guidance you are giving, there are bigger problems. I am all for closing questions, but at the same time, you have to also trust your community to do the work it is set to do, with the guidelines they are given in regards to appropriate content and so on.
Having gone through a few things where people didn't feel heard and felt like site policy was being decided by a small number of people in chat and not the community as a whole, I'd hate for anyone to have to go through that.
@MichaelT While I understand that, I also think that if the same people are always closing things, it can tend to create a culture of "well these 5 people have all the opinions and all of the power" which can get sticky
Mind you this is just a random outsider cupcake girl's opinion
You have a mod's perspective from another site that is similar in age, size, rate of questions, and number of down voted questions as P.SE.
One thing that I will point out about chat here is that even the non-denizens are aware of us and the activity of chat and will sometimes suggest someone take their question to chat... which I think is good advice.
@WorldEngineer the challenge of meta vs chat there is the rate at which something can be done. It has sometimes taken weeks to reach some sort of consensus on meta. Compared with a few minutes or hour at most here.
@WorldEngineer I would be more than happy to do "fix the post" in meta. I'd also like to get a consensus within an hour or two so that the question can be reopened while it is still fresh in the OP's mind (and other people who have possible answers). The longer we wait between close, fix, and reopen the harder it is to get that reopen interest.
And in some cases, unless the person realizes the problem with the question in the first place (often by closing it), fixing becomes more difficult (here's a change.. rollback... ok, here's a change... rollback... flag for mod to lock and forget about it for a week).
@WorldEngineer if you poke me a bit... say... on Tuesday, I can see about writing a post about using meta to fix specific questions and try to suss out how much activity is there and if it would be feasible.
@Ampt I'll work on it. Its a "need to sit down with aperture and figure out which ones I like"
(side bit - glance at the participation tab for sorting users on Meta and consider that the top three rows look a lot like chat... and after that, it drops off quite rapidly to people who posted a question there earlier this season)
This is pretty much answered by the tooltip you get when you hover over the "participation" sort link:
Users most active on this site in the last 60 days (combined number of posts, votes, comments and edits).
-- that's all it is. Take the sum of those four values and sort the users based on...
@WorldEngineer I know I didn't flag it. I also didn't close vote it... and there were no other close votes on it (it was on topic on P.SE). However, SE has mentioned that "if the OP flags it for a move and its a good move, move it" - thus, if the OP flagged it... well, it would (should) move. And it did. Thus, I believe the OP flagged it.