@Ampt to me it's important primarily because I believe that it does a lot of damage at Programmers. We also discussed at TWP chat that this makes indirect "brain-damaging" impact network wide,
For few recent months, I've got a habit of downvoting answers which quality doesn't look OK to me.
These probably can be generally described as low effort and/or these lacking relevance to question asked.
Opinionated slogans, claims that are not backed up by appropriate references or by ...
...really, say guys at SO are protected from direct impact. Meaning when they see meh, they can flag no-code and get crap deleted. But thing is, it's SO users who look at collider and who visit "sticky" questions and who pick the crappy attitude and they get back to SO and get posting meh answers there
and, well, there are hundreds and thousands of them. And meh attitude gets spread over multiple questions and SO mods only can delete minor part of crap that has been influenced through collider
> they start thinking it's the norm. That's what low quality answers in hot questions teach readers. That's what "educated" readers spread further, to their answers to other questions. That lowers overall quality of answers in multiple other questions, that is the site-wide damage
> This makes it look like good questions are those having many meh answers, the effect that is amplified by these questions being highly visible to collider audience - hundreds and thousands of SE users. Misguided users spread acquired attitude further into other questions and answers, posting stuff that follows what they saw at the "cool" ("hot") questions.
For few recent months, I've got a habit of downvoting answers which quality doesn't look OK to me.
These probably can be generally described as low effort and/or these lacking relevance to question asked.
Opinionated slogans, claims that are not backed up by appropriate references or by ...
The Whiteboard
The Whiteboard