Discussion on question by user902383: I don't want to live on this planet anymore

nitsua60

15:51

@MolbOrg you look forward to my answer to what question? I don't understand this comment you made.

MolbOrg

16:15

it fast to long for comment, and I'm not sure I can formulate what I meant in english. But I look on those comments from position of one who could try to answer that question, and find them useful(at some extent) in therms of question clarification. So I kinda expect you did the same, before calling them trash, so that makes me think that you can give interesting, and unexpected for me, answer to that question. I'm excited, what it will be.
(chat stopped, and there was no chat - but I understand that monica have other problems then borrow in to details) (I sad you called my comment trash, a…

it was too long - sry my my english

yes main problem with moving to chat - it will exist some time - then disappear - would it be opposite, would it exists so long as question exists - yep then it would be so nice, but until then - I'm against unreasonable moving to chat.

nitsua60

18:07

@MolbOrg I think anything that actually does clarify the question should be edited into the question itself; answerers shouldn't have to read a question and then fourteen comments to get an idea what the actual question is. That said, when I look at all these comments above I don't see anything that actually clarifies the question. Just comments like "well, you could do [ten-word sort-of-answer]," or "this won't work because [ten words]."

I'm should apologize for using the word "trash." I meant it very precisely like "things to throw out," not a perjorative intended to insult the authors. But I realize, looking back, the insult if probably the more-common way to read something like I write. I'm sorry.

@MolbOrg What you say about chat eventually disappearing isn't quite right, I think. It gets hard to find chat rooms after they've been frozen for inactivity, but I believe the transcripts persist. I know I've followed links to years-old chat transcripts that hadn't been touched in years, for instance.

Comments, on the other hand, get deleted all the time and there's no way for anyone other than a moderator or Community Manager to see them. So I've always considered "move to chat" to be a less-destructive way to allow conversation/discussion/commentary to happen, but in the proper place. Because someone else can come along and see the whole thing, not just the chain of whichever comments didn't get deleted.

MolbOrg

@nitsua60 If I say blue, have I clarify and incorporate in question if it is is bluish, or some weird pink blue - in case is someone for someone for not described reason thinks is is important(and it may or may not) for Q. We have different knowledge, and determine borders of OP question is important thing, tone for answers

nitsua60

Anyway, I believe I'm not in the mainstream among WB.SE users: I think there's too much comment-chatter and it dilutes the quality of the site. But I've expressed that opinion in meta and not met much agreement. So just remember: my comment was just one user's opinion =)

MolbOrg

I was not offended, but it is kind generously to make some apologies. My point is that information and its importance is different from different perspectives and purposes. When you thinks how to answer, and what is actually the question any bit counts. OP was determined in to ship solution, and it is good direction - but everything is more complex then he wish. First comment in this answer worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/52731/20315 is better then all answers

nitsua60

18:23

@MolbOrg Okay, here's what jumps out at me (and let me say that I haven't even read what you linked yet). If the comment is an answer, then it's blind to all of the functionality of the Stack! People can't downvote it. They can't comment on it asking what something means. They can't make edits. All these things that we know work--because that's how we've gotten so much good Q&A already--is being circumvented.

MolbOrg

about chats - I tried to read chat from one question I was interested for - and failed - do not remember which one, and how old it was. I do not know how long chat lives - but it was misshap I remembered. I read comments.

my personal duties is to be useful for peoples. Let prosper this site and rules that make them good - but do not forget for whom it is, and why it is successful - only because it is useful for peoples. Once it will forget about that - and everything here will be dust and memories.

nitsua60

@MolbOrg I'm actually working on a meta A along those lines right now. Consider the people. Amen.

MolbOrg

about comments answers true, it is. As example this comment answer worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/53005/20315 - it is valid answer - but there is nothing to ask, as comment-answer it would be ok. Problem is, there is not and can't be fixed rules.

nitsua60

@MolbOrg I don't completely agree. Fixed rule: answer posts should answer questions. They can be bad answers, they can be short answers. But they should answer, not comment. Fixed rule: comments should be intended to help clarify or focus the question, per the tooltip. If a comment is actually a really short answer, then destroy it with extreme prejudice.

These, now, aren't just my thoughts: they're the way that those who conceived and designed the Stack say it has worked to give us a unique resource, all over Meta and the blog.

MolbOrg

But any way I see you point, I do not disagree with it, I just not like fast judgments. I hope i clarified my point a bit. WB.SE just not fit straight in the SE principles - that is the deal. I was recently on parts of it where rules work - it's huge difference, that's have hit me actually - so distinct the difference is. On WB it is much harder to judge.

nitsua60

18:41

Yes, WB's standards tend to be rather looser than other places. What I haven't yet seen is an explanation of why.
The principles at play are proven to provide the highest-quality Q&A the world's ever seen. There's a virtuous cycle that needs to be upheld: high quality posts and high signal-to-noise attract expert tourists to become users to become authors.
If a child-site like WB wants to implement these principles differently then I think it requires the site make a good argument for why proven practices *can't* work in its domain. (In which case I'm not sure it should be in the Network.)

The Stack is not a forum, it's not good at being a forum, and it doesn't want to be a forum.

Forums are great for lots of things, and there are thousands of them out there. This is intended to be something different.

MolbOrg

What I haven't yet seen is an explanation of why. - I guess you mean: I haven't seen any explanation which was satisfactory argued for me. Really I start to feel sad, you haven't pinged me from general chat instead this one))

Deal is simply - fuzzy by nature questions have fuzzy answers and no way to validate them

actually it even makes no sense to close opinion based questions

the only tag is hard-science - but those who asks do not can for that tag, and those who could answer do not have interest in 99% unrealistic and fantasy topic here on WB

so it is abused - and when you point that for HS tag question have to be in borders of HS - no one understand that

nitsua60

@MolbOrg I agree. But that has nothing to do with comments. I'm not talking about opinion-based-ness, or the closure of questions. I'm talking comments.

(Shall we move to WB general chat?)

(I didn't expect a conversation to come out of this, but am happy to participate.)

Transcript for

Discussion on question by user902383:…