@RegDwightАΑA I see lots of questions being closed, I hear lots of complaining. If anything, it seems to be more than a year ago. From that I conclude that mission to eradicate or greatly decrease the number of non-academic questions is not a great success.
The system shuts down every now and then.
He comes late to office every now and then.
I go swimming every now and then.
For the above statements, how would you replace "every now and then" with one word?
@tchrist what I'm saying is, Cerberus says, we got X crap questions a year ago, we still get X crap questions now, so obviously it's not working. But that's not taking into account how many more users and page views we have now. It's kind of the opposite of the Homer Simpson argumentation about stones keeping lions away.
@Cerberus again, you completely drop out of the equation that if there were no efforts whatsoever to keep the site clean, we'd have even more crap questions.
Has anyone ever had any proof that deterring a small percentage of non-academic questions works to significantly prevent the proportion of academic to non-academic from slipping off to zero?
@tchrist I don't remember the particulars, but I have seen such questions.
I don't have a real problem with that: at least they weren't closed.
@Cerberus ZOMG! Maybe we're in a Twilight Zone show-ending epiphany wherein we suddenly realize that we are the ELU Lite for Linguistics.SE! Mind = assploded!
In fact, our interesting questions are often about linguistics, but focused exclusively on English, and our answers there are often on par with the quality of Linguistics.
@tchrist people don't use ELU, either. I.e. the next person, rather than looking at the answer here, will go ask on Reddit. Or Yahoo Answers. It's a perpetuum mobile.
@RegDwightАΑA There is just this problem with the "great questions attract great answers" adage. First of all, we don't know exactly how and to what extent this works. Secondly, there are many other factors. Thirdly, unless we become much, much more restrictive, there is no way we can get a majority of interesting questions. Fourthly, there is nothing that proves that a non-majority of great questions attracts anything.
So many questions that have been answered here two years ago, with charts and COCA stats from nohat and all, get asked yet again in the Grammar Subreddit. Just go and check for yourself.
In short, there is no proof at all that closing a certain small minority of non-academic questions in a fairly aggressive manner works at all to increase the number of academic questions significantly.
General Reference:
alternately, at intervals, at random, at times,
ever and again, ever and anon, every now and then, every once in a while, every so often, fluctuating, from time to time, here
and there, infrequently, intermittently, irregularly, now and again, now
and then, occasiona...
In short, there is no proof at all that closing a certain small minority of non-academic questions in a fairly aggressive manner works at all to increase the number of academic questions significantly.
So what's with this extreme rain? Is it some sort of divine punishment?
@Cerberus getting trash out does help in getting trash out, by definition. Whether or not it helps in not getting trash in the first place, is a different question entirely, but if anything that's an added benefit.
Which sentence is grammatically correct?
What are the elements in the poem that make it joyful.
or
What are the elements in the poem that makes it joyful.
@Cerberus The thing is, people who are already here know not to break windows. it's the people who have just shown up and rillyrillyrillyrilly want their question answered that throw most of the stones
@RegDwightАΑA I think having a few GR and SWR and ESL questions less is not really a benefit, since we have so many others. And I doubt closing a few of the non-academic questions will increase the number of academic questions.
I think we should just make up our minds: either we close 90+ % of all questions and only keep the academic ones, or we just let all the non-spammy and non-incomprehensible ones be.
@Cerberus That is the problem. The thing is — and I don't mean that in a disrespectful way, quite the opposite in fact: that's the only way how you can stay sane —, the thing is, you don't come here for the main site. You come here to chat with ten-odd people. You openly state that you couldn't care less about the main site. For all you care it might not exist. Again, I don't mean that as an accusation; I'm just saying that it's hypocritical.
@RegDwightАΑA I do care about the main site. I like to answer a few interesting questions now and then. I just don't care about whether there are uninteresting questions, just as I don't care about the uninteresting people on the street. I just leave them be, and they don't bother me.
@JSBձոգչ I don't see a deletion machine. Also, if you voted on deletion, why is there only one delete vote? Had there been another in the "deletion machine" then there ought to be two by now. I'm still puzzling over how this whole review system is supposed to work now. I see no delete votes anywhere.
@MattЭллен Nothing: I don't think many people continue to maintain the same level of activity on a site for an indefinite period. Moods and interests change. I chose to remain active on a lower level, answering questions regularly but not nearly so often as before, when Rob and I would hurry to answer any new question as soon as it appeared.
@RegDwightАΑA I don't know. But of course that would be bad. However, I am not convinced closing a minority of uninteresting questions as we do now has much effect either way. At least I haven't seen any strong evidence.
@Cerberus It's a curious dynamic. I often have to fight someone before I can be friends with them. Just like an old John Wayne movie or something: you learn mutual respect by knocking each other's blocks off.
@Cerberus see, that's the thing. We constantly need fresh people. Because people constantly burn out. How do you attract fresh high-quality contributors if your front page looks exactly like that of any other grammer-related forum ever?
Old joke: Two hikers in the woods spot a bear, and one of the hikers tosses down his pack, takes off his hiking shoes and puts on running shoes. The other hiker says, "Hey, why are you putting on running shoes? You can't outrun a bear." The first hiker says, "I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you."
@Robusto Yeah, it is a strange thing. I don't feel that I have to fight, but somehow a certain serenity and understanding can follow. Doesn't always happen.
Stephen: Do you . . . Do you know the best way to escape a charging polar bear? Jeremy: Shoot it in the face. Alan: I know! I know! [presses buzzer, which sings "Everything's Coming Up Roses"] Stephen: Yes, go on. Alan: You take your clothes off. Stephen: Exactly. It stops to pick up your clothes and smell them, and you just get further away from them. Jeremy: That is the biggest load of nonsense . . . Clive: And then you die of . . . Stephen: You would obviously be chilly, I suspect. Alan: But you won't be eaten, so . . .
@RegDwightАΑA I am not sure what to think; but I am not convinced as of yet. The damage, on the other hand, is clear: you and others spend lots and lots of time doing a janitor's job instead of having fun studying English; and lots of people are unhappy because their questions get closed, and others because their answers are to a closed question.
"I Want It That Way" is a song by the Backstreet Boys, and their first single from their 1999 album Millennium. It was written by Max Martin and Andreas Carlsson along with other producers. The song was highly played on the radio and the video, directed by Wayne Isham, was well played on television. It was later released on the Backstreet Boys' greatest hits album, The Hits: Chapter One, in 2001. It is considered one of their signature songs.
The song is still routinely played on both radio and video and the single has been highly critically acclaimed, winning and being nominated for v...
@Robusto Chapter the Eleventh: In Which The Plot, Behaving In Much The Same Manner As A Soup To Which Cornstarch Has Been Added, Begins, At Last, To Thicken. (quoth Paarfi of Roundwood)
Wurst ist ein Nahrungsmittel, das aus zerkleinertem Fleisch, Speck, Salz und Gewürzen, bei bestimmten Sorten auch unter Verwendung von Blut und Innereien zubereitet wird. Die vorbereitete Masse, das Brät, wird in Därme, Blasen oder Mägen gefüllt, durch Abbinden mit Wurstgarn oder Abklammern mit rostfreien Metallklammern in einzelne Würste unterteilt und je nach Sorte durch Kochen oder Backen gegart oder durch Trocknen mit oder ohne zusätzliches Räuchern konserviert. Bei industriell hergestellter Wurst werden häufig Kunstdärme, auch Gläser und Konservendosen verwendet. In Deutschlan...
@RegDwightАΑA I am vaguely tempted to open an Area 51 proposal: Close all the questions! All questions asked here will be migrated to ELU or closed. brickwall.stackexchange.com.
@JSBձոգչ I really wouldn't expect you to understand. But her behavior directly threatens my personal freedoms, and her smug little face as she promotes sexism everywhere just makes me want to punch her.
@JSBձոգչ You can be a conservative woman (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe) without being a misogynist. Palin is a misogynist, and it's revolting how much she revels in it.