« first day (1 day earlier)    last day (43 days later) » 

user131753
8:34 AM
@Asaf: I can tell you my threshold. But surely that's my threshold only and isn't going to be useful for the community. You wrote, "As I outlined in my first post, the idea is to have discussions until the end of April." Indeed. But where exactly the discussion regarding the need for such list going on? Furthermore, if it sounded like I am claiming that you aren't "not waiting or that there is some sense of urgency", then I am sorry, I wasn't claiming that.
 
quid
quid
10:43 AM
I would say that this question already presumes that the community wants a list. Which was not really established. — user 170039 6 hours ago
@user170039: Seeing how 33 people voted that "urgent" should be on this list, I'd say that the abstract support for a list is well established. — Asaf Karagila ♦ 4 hours ago
@AsafKaragila: 33 people is pretty small with respect to the community, no? Also voting on the proposal of inclusion of particular word (e.g., "urgent") in a list doesn't really mean that those 33 people supports the creation/need of such a list. It implies that if such a list is going to be created then 33 people agree with the proposal of including "urgent" in such a list. — user 170039 3 hours ago
@user170039: Have you seen the standard meta response? If we want to wait until there are 100 voters we will normally have to wait for a very long time, if not the heat death of the universe. And how can you support the inclusion of certain words, if you don't support the act itself? The filter already exists, and the list is in place. It is simply empty. — Asaf Karagila ♦ 3 hours ago
@AsafKaragila: So, you don't want to wait? What's the urgency? — user 170039 2 hours ago
@user170039: How about you just tell me your threshold for a community support? Do we wait another three weeks? three months? 17 years? At what point do you say that there is or isn't a support? I've been on meta for quite some time now, almost a decade, and I can tell you that 30+ votes is an incredible amount of support. As I outlined in my first post, the idea is to have discussions until the end of April. There are still 15 days left. Why are you claiming that I'm not waiting or that there is some sense of urgency? — Asaf Karagila ♦ 2 hours ago
@user170039 The body of question says and always said "If no such words emerge, then there will be no list." (In addition the title of the questions says "(if any)".) This addresses the concern you raise very explicitly. What you say is false. For further discussion use the dedicated resources mentioned in the post. — quid ♦ 7 mins ago
as explained in the post on which you comment "In the other question various points of view were raised and some voting on the proposal happened. However, voting on a proposal turned out to be complex as there were many aspects: some did not want a HNQ block-list at all, some wanted it as proposed and even more, some maybe wanted or would not mind some words but not what was proposed, others wanted a list but only a short one and without that being guaranteed in advance rather would lobby for none, etc., etc.
To reiterate "No clear community-opinion can be extracted from that [the old question]. With that in mind lets start from the start."
The list (or no list) is now decided in a grassroots effort of the community at large. Everybody that wants a word blocked can propose it, everybody that has an opinion on each and every word can make their voice count.
It is difficult for me to envision a more community oriented approach.
To discuss at length the abstract idea of having a list is not useful.
The feature exists anyway. In a way the list exists already. It happens to be currently empty.
Now we decide what (if anything) should be include.
 
 
2 hours later…
quid
quid
1:07 PM
Some other archived remark:
Nowhere in this question to I see any explanation of the purpose of having such a list. If the idea is to have some words we can include in our questions if we want to prevent them from going HNQ, why would more than one word be needed? Why not just a simple phrase like "do not HNQ"? — bof 2 days ago
In my opinion this was discussed on the earlier question. That said, It is ultimately also irrelevant. If different people support the inclusion of a word, and the related effects, for different maybe even contradictory reasons it should still be included. Same for opposition to inclusion.
It is not, at least not always, necessary to agree why we do something if we agree that it is beneficial to do what we do.
Except if the contention is that users are not necessarily informed sufficiently well to take a decision.
However, that would be in stark contrast to the fact that some users, notably @user170039, already saw fit to call a vote on the abstract, more complex, subject.
 
 
5 hours later…
rene
rene
5:46 PM
Here is a SEDE Query with some stats for words in titles that were in HNQ but removed vs words in titles that were not removed from HNQ. Strangely enough "this" seems a good candidate.
2
 
quid
quid
6:32 PM
On more comment on "Also voting on the proposal of inclusion of particular word (e.g., "urgent") in a list doesn't really mean that those 33 people supports the creation/need of such a list."
The question to which the answers were given contains (added emphasis):
"Everybody that thinks a particular word should be included in such a list posts an answer containing this word (below is a template for clarity and to get past the character limit). Up vote on the answer means "I want this on the HNQ block-list", downvote means "I do not want this on the HNQ block-list"."
"If there are words that emerge as being widely believed to desirable or at least non-problematic to include on such a list, we go forward with the idea and make the list with those words."
It is made explicit that the positive voting on these answers amounts to endorsement of the creation of the list.
If words emerge, then we make the list. If not, then not. This is clear in that thread.
This is the subject of the vote.
There is overwhelming support for having urgent on the list, and thus for having a non-empty list.
Not if-then. The vote says the list is to be create and this word should be on the list.
This is what is voted on.
 

« first day (1 day earlier)    last day (43 days later) »