I think that the design of MSE could be more welcoming to new users. I don't know how much effort it would take and of course that should be considered. My view is as someone who is relatively new to the site, just a few months, and who is relatively active. I am not under the delusion that thes...
I will add that there is also somewhat similar feature request on the main meta: Can we rename the off-topic close reason label on the primary screen? To answer your question: "Why hasn't it changed?" the best I can say is this. Feature request are proposed on per-site-metas and on meta.SE. If they gain sufficient support, then SE staff will look into them and if they decide that the feature request is reasonable, then the developers will implement it. (Otherwise they mark it status-declined.)
So one question is whether the voting on those feature requests already shows sufficient support. (The two feature request on our local meta have currently scores 10 and 16. The feature request on meta.SE is at score 86.) If yes, then the question why they weren't implemented yet is mainly question for SE staff. (And perhaps for moderators, since they also communicate with the people from SE.) Probably I should add that this network is very large and there are probably hundreds of feature request. So that some of them do not get implemented or it takes quite a long time is not that surprising.
@Martin Does MSE have control over the message that users get when they get an "off-topic" ding? If so we could say something to the effect that their post may not really be off-topic but that until the terminology is corrected system-wide we need to live with it. In the meantime, we could launch a campaign to get it changed.
The prior discussion about how system changes can be made, should be part of an easily accessible page in a policy section.
I think there's one very good and important point here: it would be useful if we could have a much more basic MathJax introduction. I imagine a student who is studying calculus or discrete math for the first time with no experience with TeX finding our existing guide to be a bit impregnable. Such a guide could be styled like: "To typeset $\frac{-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a}$, use \frac{-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a} enclosed by dollar signs," etc. Something with very basic, simple examples would be useful, I think.
It seems that some of the stuff raised in this question should be discussed - although I think that discussing all of this in one question is probably going to be rather difficult. Anyway, +1 from me for raising some interesting questions. (Despite the fact that I disagree with some parts of the question and in some places it is somewhat unclear what the OP actually suggests.)
Well, then I propose a block, after registering an account, from asking, until such a new user goes through the notice of mathjax with links to learn it, and checks "I understand;" and until such a new user goes through a pop-up of site policies, and checks "I understand"; and until such a new user is presented with a "style sheet" about notations conventions, and a review of mathjax, and a review of site policies, and checking "I understand". And only then, be allowed to ask a question. All such information is available, if a new user takes the initiative to learn the site policies, etc..
Stephan.... cont .... Since most new askers (and some not so new askers) don't check this out, it doesn't mean the site is "not nice." But perhaps we simply need more hoops for new users to jump through by requiring a series of three or four pop-ups, policy, expectations, how to ask a good question, style, and require the would be new asker to check off "I understand" prior to posting. If after that, if they still fail to abide by what they claimed they understand, they should be held accountable, just as any other user is.
@MartinSleziak I don't understand your rationale for upvoting. You acknowledge the question is likeluy (1) too broad; and that (2) you don't agree with everything that is being suggested by the OP. The OP himself is rather a new user who needs to learn more about the site before repeatedly posting complaints before researching for earlier such posts, etc. I mean, are we supposed to deliver coffee and donuts to every "new user" (half of which, I conclude, are not in fact new, but rather regulars who recycle accounts repeatedly)?
@MartinSleziak, that's pretty good but it could use some improvement to be user friendly to new users. For example,1) it could start off with a warning something like: YOU MAY HAVE RECEIVED A MESSAGE THAT YOUR QUESTION WAS OFF-TOPIC; THAT IS A STANDARD STACK EXCHANGE RESPONSE WHICH MAY NOT BE VALID IN YOUR CASE. We are trying to get it changed to ..... . Another example 2) The items are too long. They could be split into smaller pieces. Some stuff is very important for new users to know. Other stuff can come later.
@MartinSleziak continued 3) The word "context" is jargon which will tend to confuse new users. Jargon should either be avoided or defined, esp. on an explanatory page and never used as a title to suggest a subject area. 4) Some of the "suggestions" seem to have become policies, these should be noted. At least some users such as amWhy seem to take them as policy. 5) How about a description of how to make suggestions to change the page and how to ask questions about it. There are probably more ideas for improvement. This is only one example of my suggestion to show more empathy on the site .
@MartinSleziak excuse me for yet another ping. But I am curious about a few things you said earlier; there is no rush to answer. 1) "in some places it is somewhat unclear what the OP actually suggests." Please let me know which places and I will try to clarify. 2)" I disagree with some parts of the question" Which parts and why?
continued @MartinSleziak 3) "I think that discussing all of this in one question is probably going to be rather difficult." I agree, my purpose was to raise the general issue of empathy, and to do so I needed to give examples; I could probably give more examples. However, if you think it would be useful to raise some of the issues separately, please suggest how it would be best done. Maybe by some one else?
Perhaps we should also have a question "Can this site require new users be required to be more informed, prior to asking any question? and "Why expecting minimal standards of questions and answers is the "nicest thing to do, for askers, answerer's and the site in general."
I think that it's already not that hard to learn the standards of this community. The problem is that there are tons of people posting PSQs [Problem Statement Questions] who do not care about this site and are only interested in having the community solve their homework for them. [ed.]
Also, if it scares some new users away, that is not necessarily a bad thing. We want more users who actually contribute something positive. Quality is more important than quantity.
As I said before, @JohnMa the suggestions are merely illustrative examples of how the site itself can be more empathic. I think the examples have raised issues that might better be discussed and voted upon separately.
Stephen When are you, and how will you commit to being, more empathetic? If you care not to respond to your rude and deleted (because it was rude) comment, to a new user, "Unless you provide some reason for us to consider this question, like you are teaching yourself math on a desert island, then this question is too easy for us to worry about," I and many others will have an issue with your proclaimed interest in being nice to new users, because you yourself failed to be.
@amwhy : I suggest that we focus more on the features suggested in the question than the OP himself.
@StephenMeskin But how can I vote separately 4 requests on one question? My understanding for questions tagged with feature request is that others users upvote/downvote to show if they agree with the change proposed.
I have focused, if you were to read, on the features suggested by an un-nice user complaining about how to be nicer. Being nice does not entail "doing new user's work for them", just as it does not entail a user, such as this OP, demeaning a new user because he judges a question "too easy".
I still do not see how your accusations to a comment by the OP will lead us to a better discussion of some of the valid suggestions proposed. To me it is quite unfortunate. @amWhy
There is no accusation, @JohnMa. Any mod can confirm that the comment I posted from Stephen, was indeed deleted as "rude". I don't really see, actually, any "valid" suggestions proposed. Stephen, in creating the "suggestions" is hard to take seriously, when he acts in ways to defy that he even knows what niceness is, let alone, is capable of suggesting actions/changes to make the site more "nice". The site cannot itself be nice; only it's users can be nice, and the user complaining about a lack of niceness, has demonstrated that he his hardly nice.
To other users, you will notice that one user is relentlessly attacking me. This is not the first time that user has done so. I will not respond to someone who is constantly trying to disparage and bully me with twisted half truths, misinterpretations, exaggerations, and over 100k reps so the user has power and friends to do things that I cannot match. As I said initially my goal is try to improve something I find valuable with ideas I can see with my fresh eyes. My ideas may not work but they should not be shot down or suppressed by nasty ad hominem attacks.
@Qudit the "comments" you refer to are a distraction from the discussion of the points, their validity or invalidity should have no weight, they are clearly OFF-TOPIC and should be deleted. If I commented on them, I would be further distracting from the discussion.
It could help if your post would not state things like "However, a little empathy would be welcome." This is not really relevant to your proposals either and invites reactions on whether there is (enough) empathy on the site. You can edit your post.
@qudit I have taken your advice. The phrase was not meant to refer to the activities of users but to the design of the site. I can see how it could have been misunderstood. This is a difficult medium in which to express nuance.
After a short exchange the poster edited the question and I made some additional edits, to focus the discussion on the design of the site and the documentation we provide, and away of things that can be taken as discussing the conduct of individual users. Thus, I also tried to remove all discussion on that aspect.
@quid, And I believe your changes has enabled the poster, by leaving the 'poster' free to expect for this site, the antithesis of his own behavior on site. But... alas, this site (or its users and mods, have become too enabling of the same sorts of behavior the then decry.... This site is becoming a living lie.
@quid I do not think my comments about it already not being difficult to learn the norms of this community were off-topic and they were not part of the discussion you removed. However, I see that you chose to remove those as well.
@Why Indeed. Sadly, this site has turned into little more than a glorified homework completion service. Often, it is hard to even find anything worth answering in my areas of interest. IMO, the OP's proposals would mainly serve to coddle users who are abusing the system for their own gain.
I see absolutely no justification for the deletion of your comments, @Qudit. If those of us who comment to give feedback, and challenge a poster's suggestion, offering perhaps overlooked points of view, and/or pointing out a contradiction between a complainer about some phenomenon X on the site, when the complainer engages in phenomenon X on the site, is valuable info to add to the post. In any case, your comments in particular were not in any way off topic. I believe quid's actions are not "moderate", but rather biased in favor of of the not nice user accusing the site as being not nice.
@quid, this is not the question originally asked. Please, next time, let a post be answered as it deserves to be answered, and if the asker later decides "that's not what I meant", they should post a new, different post and clarify the additional, less loaded question. Here, your selective deletions of comments and an answer, essentially endorse that any asker can ask a question, even on main, receive feedback in comments, and in an answer or two or more, then change their mind, and post an altogether different related question to replace the original question, ...
... cont. and then having you come along and deleting the comments and answers to the original question, because the question was modified (changed), so that "the comments and answers are no longer valid."
@Qudit I restored one comment. Practically, I deleted all comments and then undeleted selectively. Maybe write an answer instead of leaving a string of comments.
@Why I am not sure if you saw it, but OP had followed a suggestion of mine and started to edit and acknowledge that the original phrasing was not optimal. I consider this as sufficient. I do not see the point in insisting they ask a new question. Indeed, somebody might reproach them if they did do that, too. Anyway, I do not see any good practical reason for it. Plus, if I had not intervened chances are the thread would have been deleted in the not too distant future anyway. Incidentally, I had refused to delete your answer it for a while, but now it became obsolete.
"Plus, if I had not intervened chances are the thread would have been deleted in the not too distant future anyway." Indeed; it deserved to be deleted, and since you want to take solo credit for saving a poor, hypocritical post from deletion, I'd rather phrase it thusly: Because you intervened, selectively chose which comments should stay, which should go, empathized only with the asker, a very poor, ingenuous, question remains.
@Why "empathized only with the asker" as I explained I insisted that the post be rephrased, precisely because I understand that the initial phrasing was annoying to some (incidentally this includes me). But the post was also considerate, acknowledging the difficulty etc, and does raise some valid points. For example, I do agree that the MathJax documentation is arguably not user-friendly enough.
I agree that the mathjax documentation could be improved. But that was a minimal part of the post, (original post). It is you who removed valid points that the asker never addressed, encouraging him to change his post (likely in exchange for the deletion of comments he didn't like) who made most of the valid comments irrelevant by destroying them.
@quid IIRC, I only left 3-4 comments (hardly a string) and one of them was a reply to another user's query. I thought that one of the main points of meta was to discuss issues with the site, so I'm having a hard time seeing why it is useful to delete such a large part of the discussion (this includes my other comment right after the one you restored). I also note that one of Why's comments had 5 upvotes which seems to indicate that a number of users found it to be a useful addition to the discussion. If comments just going to be deleted, it makes me less inclined to participate on meta.
@Qudit the rationale is explained in my first comment "to focus the discussion on the design of the site and the documentation we provide" the question is rather too broad focused on that, even broader is just too broad. If you want to discuss something else, feel free to ask your own question.
@quid that "rationale" means very little, especially when you are responsible for having decided what this question should be about, give the asker an ultimatum to make it so, and delete valid responses to the post (given your censorship and deletion of 50 % of the post). so, you designed this post to be what you believe is valid by crafting (and requiring the edit of) the question, and by deleting real and valuable content. Without such content, due to your intervention, you've rendered the question meaningless, inhibiting the very users who care about such questions, from future engagement
@quid What you claim is the case hardly has merit, because you've destroyed the very conversation you claim you had with the asker, destroyed the conversation and context of the post, to make it what you think is worth keeping. All good and well, except this is not the question asked by a non-mod user, and is not the conversation about the question you chose to change. Hence: your rationale is meaningless, as you've left no evidence in comments to verify your claims, and censored the comments, which only you and other mods can now see. That's not fair.
Any way, I think it deserves mentioning that it rests in the hands of people to be nice and welcoming, not scripts. Most users know that written rules, regulations, specifications, exceptions in print (privacy policies, insurance policies, consumer responsibilities, user agreements) aren't designed to be fun, but rather informative. Words cannot coddle. Only people can be welcoming, can set limits, can be nice, or not nice, so if a user acts in a not nice way, in an unwelcoming way, that's where change needs to take place....
...To blame documentation for users feeling "unwelcome" is outrageous, especially when the blame comes from users who, like us all, are ultimately responsible for when and how or even if, new users are welcomed, recognizing that "welcoming a new user" $\not \equiv$ "coddling a new user."
Following @quid's removal of comments, and the message about the discussion being moved here, and yet, the subsequent 20 + comments were never moved as well, following quid's pronouncement: "Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat." (with this chat linked). So, the removal of posts was not about leading to an extended discussion, (because the discussion was further extended, but rather, the selective removal of only some folks' posts.
@amWhy yes, I thought I was clear about that all along. I wanted to remove comments that I considered as tangential and/or obsolete. Do you want me to edit the auto-comment? On the subsequent comments, I wish there were less but I cannot moved them to chat again. Thus, I can leave them or delete them. As long as they stay on-topic and it's not to excessive volume-wise I leave them.
But I might very well delete some more comments there; I did not check the thread very recently.
Well all I can say is that the feedback now in existence does not represent all the valid feedback the post has received. It feels to me that I'm the one being targeted, and if I have enough juice left, I may write a meta post (which I've rarely rarely done addressing this. But, I may not have enough energy to do so, and/or, I have no trust that anything I say will matter any way. I'm giving up.
@quid Nextime you feel the need to delete mostly one persons comments, or two or three, and such, say so. "I'm deleting comments because .... " Don't fake a reason, like "the discussion is getting to long (comments are not intended for long discussions...), and will be moved to chat [link]." Any way, I know you well enough to know you never set out to harm, or discourage users, or overlook valuable contributors to the site; and that you do what you think is best.
@quid No, my "giving up" isn't about yesterday, or the meta post alone. But I do think that thee feedback permitted to remain is a biased representation of community sentiments. But I'm getting pretty used to being dismissed in general, not so much by you, but... Yes, perhaps we can discuss more later.
@amWhy I am not sure in which way I gave the impression to dismiss your input. To give an example, you pointed out that evolution of the post is not understandable anymore for lack of comments. As a result of this, I restored all comments in chat. (Which by the way entailed one-by-one undeleting about 20 comments, and then once the conversation was moved to redelete them agin. It's not a major effort but it is not nothing either. )
There are also plenty of comments deleted there by me that were not posted by you, 20+ or so.
Furthermore, I left around the four comments of you directly before the move to chat. Two about the issue recalled just above, and two about paraphrasing "the site cannot be nice, only individuals can be nice" since I think it is a relevant point.
@quid I've got only 12 minutes remaining before I leave this site... for a break, perhaps for good. I refrained from reviews today... and I suspect the queues will creep upwards in numbers of posts to review, not simply because the cease of my unappreciated efforts, but another, and more, as well.
@amWhy I hope you'll enjoy your break, it is certainly well deserved. Thank you for your numerous contributions. Hopefully, we'll see again in the not too distant future! :-)
Discussion on question by Stephen Mes…
Discussion on question by Stephen Mes…