Have you come across the CURED chat room? That is a more appropriate place to post these links.

Ya this has become a big problem. Some people are there who don't even take some moment to read EoQS. They just answer contextless question. What I think is you can put id of user over here and count the number of question he answered which were PSQs and divide them by his total answer. If it is more than 50% just flag the user for moderator intervention informing them all this saying he answer PSQs. If possible show them the query link and tell them how many PSQs he answered

@JitendraSingh It became a problem a lot before , that's why EoQS was framed but I think it has become lazy now

You should not answer low quality PSQ questions. However, I strongly disagree with that high rep. user suggestion. You are welcomed if you follow the rules. As per my experience with answers flagging for moderator for EOQS, I have not any good experience. You should rather post the links in the Cured Chat room. I have far better experience in the Chatroom.

This question will need statistics to back it up : if EoQS is flailing then statistics will reflect this.

@user1729 and Nikhil, this post points out a reality of this sight that surpasses what users can do in chat. We need more moderators actively working on flags, before flaggers like you and I figure out it takes so long between pattern infractions, and moderator action, that sanctions lose their effect. Instead, answerers earning easy rep is their immediate reward, and by the time sanctions are given, those answering inappropriate questions fail to connect the action with their behavior.

That ends up with immediate rep gained has more effect on their behavior than does long term consequences they are puzzled and angry about. The net result, is their continuing to answer "do it for me questions."

@amWhy Yes, you completely reflected what I wanted to say in more precise words :-)

Lalit I'm happy you posted this question today, and you said it quite well!

@NikhilKumarSingh You wrote: "As per my experience with answers flagging for moderator for EOQS, I have not any good experience. " Indeed, and that's precisely why this need to be addressed right here, in public, as it is not rectifiable in CURED, alone.

@PedroTamaroff It is there, why framed rules are not under action?

Why the question is being voted to be closed?? Please leave a comment atleast.

I am one of the close-voters and, as Pedro commented, I don't see any question here (the phrase "why framed rules are not under action" was added after I voted; but even with that, it is unclear why you think there is no action.

@Lalit Perhaps because some users would prefer to closet up PoQS, and mods' would like the work of enforcing to cease? Your question is fully appropriate. If it is closed, it is because others are trying to sweep EoQS under the rug.

@Artic That is what's being asked? The question is "why has there been little action on enforcing EoQS." Why would anyone ask this question if they already knew why that is true.

So now, if a user says "Is xyz true", you'll respond, "you haven't told us why you think it's true", @arctic? Please stop interrogating a legitimately concerned user, just because you can intimidate?

Also, if warning are ignored, you are suggested to flag the post (of course you can also downvote their answers; but I don't see this is suggested in EoQS).

@ArcticChar No it was there before

This is the version I saw when I casted the vote (not too important - I still think the current version is not clear).

@Arctic Just as users feel free to upvote poor posts that they answer, or reward friends with upvotes, or give pity upvotes, you cannot dictate the grounds on which questions and answers are downvoted. Sorry. Downvoting answers to poor posts is entirely legitimate, particularly when users find that answering do it for me posts is not at all useful to the site, nor the asker, and that, such answers are actually harmful.

@ArcticChar If you encounter a user who consistently answers low-quality (or duplicate) questions over a significant period of time, and polite references to this post do not seem to be helping, please raise a flag on one of their answers. Use the "in need of moderator intervention" option and let us know what is happening. Again, please do not argue with them about the quality of their contributions, nor downvote their answers in a targeted manner. Raise a flag, and move on.

This is what moderator said while declaring EoQS but as @NikhilKumarSingh said, it doesn't happens

@ArcticChar Now since you know question, Can you remove the vote :-)

Now I can see only two of the four posts you linked: one of them was answered by a relatively new users, with only 6 answers posted... do you think that they consistantly answer low quality post? Did you flag this user? For the second post, the answer-er is not new, but the post is only 21 hours old.... what do you expect from the mods in this 21 hours?

I am not collecting all posts and posting here , I gave a few examples

That doesn't means there are only 4 questions which were ignored, these are just examples, MANY MORE are there

and @NikhilKumarSingh gave the testimony

@ArcticChar The problem is not that they consistently answer such post, the problem is Why do they answer such post and If they do, why no action is being taken. As I cited my example, it was also first time and I had to face bitter consequences

and that's why we see following comments about are site on other sites

I agree with @Lalit that the issue is that these users shouldn't have answered these questions. However, 4 questions is not a pattern, and could just be an anomaly. I feel that if we are going to have this discussion then more evidence should be offered/collated.

@user1729 I understand and agree that we need, and moderator's must agree to objective measures to examine rate of moderator's handling flags, rate of flags, rate of psq's being answered, and even rate of PSQ's being answered by formerly sanctioned answers, which would also require a synopsis from prior to the EoPQ. I'm sure I am overlooking other important data. I agree, but I don't think it entails closing this question, but perhaps discussing with mods, and our best data-gatherer (Martin Sleziak), to merely discuss various measures, other than personal perceptions, we can learn from.

@user1729 Perhaps we could do that here, or perhaps we should consider a separate meta post addressing that.

@amWhy I haven't voted to close - my interpretation of the question is "I am still coming across answers to questions which violate the EoQS. Why is this?" and I hope a moderator will answer this. Perhaps further discussions on whether or not there is still an issue, what can be done, etc. should be done in a bespoke chat room, possibly dependent on the mods answer here? (However, such a room may end up treading the fine line between "targeting specific behaviour" and "targeting specific users", so again some sort of mod input would be appreciated...)

@amWhy I spent a while typing and have only now seen your comment. Maybe wait until tomorrow (see if this is mod-answered) before moving further?

Indeed, @user1729 I believe a chatroom had existed, from surplus in comments to the EoQS initial post by Xander, to discuss the policy; but it would be good to figure out a way to discuss its impact, etc. I like your idea.

Sure, @user1729. Thanks for chiming in!

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the EoQS are not under action? Giving examples where people break a rule does not mean that rule is not active. If your question or concern is another, then consider rewriting your post accordingly to reflect this.

@PedroTamaroff I gave example where rule has already been broken but no action has been taken

@LalitTolani Of the four posts you link, only two have flags, which have been raised 1 hour and 4 hours ago. The flags take a while to handle (this quarter, the average time is about 24hs). I suggest you be a bit more patient.

But I asked question 10hrs ago @PedroTamaroff and those posts have been there even much before

If people don't agree to EoQS, they aren't going to follow it. Enforcement won't change everybody's opinion on what is the case, and those who feel constrained will still try to break free of it, however they can. Then there's also people who don't care about stuff and answer anything they find interesting, that's what this site means to them. This goes some way to explaining the answer to why answers violating EoQS still come in : people don't care, and/or don't agree (and/or haven't even heard of EoQS). The important thing is to regain the quality ratio that was once there.

@TeresaLisbon then why the answers of those users are not downvoted immediately

@PedroTamaroff I think the OP is asking why only they got heavily downvoted and were asked to go to Chegg/Quora.

That you are downvoted is not because of EoQS: at least not directly. Users do downvotes answers to low quality post before EoQS (but I guess this is more common nowadays).

@LalitTolani The same reason : people are not using EoQS to judge questions. Why? They don't agree with it, and/or don't care about it and/or haven't even heard of it. Some may even be confused, they had opinions of MSE before coming here and now suddenly something else crops up that they never thought of? That is their point of view. Those who see EoQS violations will probably downvote , but how many see these as violations, is the question. The important thing is : get the quality ratio back. The stats will tell us how to proceed, and we do so. A group will do the job.

@Pedro Please read all comments: they're already more constructive than yours, and long addressed before your crashing the party.

@TeresaLisbon So the issue now becomes how to raise the number of people who can believe in EoQS,

Maybe if SEDE had more information on closures and deletions O.o

@LalitTolani Good point : by talking to them. By inviting them to meta, by making them realize our point of view , at the least. But the truth is, that it's experiential. My uncle's parents were murdered by members of a fringe community, and I cannot blame this uncle for his views against that community, inasmuch I'd like him to be accepting of them. I'm not saying that we can't talk people into believing us, but we can only do so much. Thankfully, we know that pro-EoQS has some kind of majority, from those who have voted and spoken about it. We have informed users who can do this job.

@ArcticChar What you said to Pedro show's how little you've paid attention to this conversation, as well. Lalit asked a legitimate question, and echoed what a huge number of users have also noticed. Did you and Pedro not see user1729 and I speaking about addressing measures that can more effectively address the effectiveness of EoQS, which I think needs to include the rate at which flags get handled by mods. Now if you want to rain on this parade, Pedro, I suspect it's because you are worried about what we might find out wrt the last concern.

@ArcticChar I am not taking out my frustation here

@LalitTolani There's also this problem, that we don't know what goes on among the mods, see e.g. here for a mod violating EoQS (at least before the question improved IMO, although users do not agree with this and I would say they have a point as well). Indecision at the highest level, even one question, is definitely indicative of differences of opinion at that level, which trickle down to become a spectrum at the user level. So agreement there would be a start!

@Teresa I agree with much of what you say. But some of the most enthusiastic supporters of this met with the grim reality that mods think being on the site 15 minutes three times a week suffices for their moderation duty. I've already said that if the EoQS isn't more quickly delivered, PSQ askers and answerers will most remember the thrill of the upvotes of 10 questions/answers, to the warning on one of them. Sitting out a day, to come back and earn PSQ points during the rest of the week, fine.

Teresa, we are repeating each other. I do not want to interrupt you . And you add some great points. I just do not think that Pedro's comments have reflected any interpretation, in good faith, by Pedro. Arctic too. Their concerns were previously addressed, yet both start back from square one. Pedro, treat users as presenting in good faith.

Read this, @amWhy. I feel that the OP just misunderstood. I agree that some discussion on the effectiveness of EoQS is needed, at least I would be curious to know. But please make a new meta post on that.

@amWhy Absolutely right. If moderators say, like was advised on say CURED and the EoQS page, that the brunt of delivering the goods is on them, then we can't have too much indecision at that level for sure. Either mods must speak to us more often, or we must speak to them more often.

Said perfectly, @TeresaLisbon. What we do, no matter hard we work, will accomplish nothing unless and until mods take the enforcement more seriously, and most of all, don't waste time while here to further contribute to the problem by answering PSQs, when they have actually good work to do.

Thanks, @ArcticChar I appreciate your input.

Those who want to back up stats can use the webpage here and go through the various queries, which will give people useful information on their own behaviour and others' behaviour vis-a-vis EoQS. Furthermore, people can create their own queries, the tutorial is excellent @Lllt This will help you get stats to back up your statements.

Sede needs to track users deletion votes imho