« first day (1748 days earlier)      last day (1460 days later) » 

3:54 AM
i asked at health.se chat, but nobody could answer... for a question that is equally on-topic here and at health.se, which site produces higher quality answers?
 
 
13 hours later…
4:25 PM
@Oddthinking about niceness I mean stuff like, this: skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/31037/…
Where users dismiss the notability of a claim because they don't approve of the particular example source
But it is long known that claims can be notable as long as they are believed by many people... Dismissing notability because of a single bad source is just not acting in good faith
 
 
3 hours later…
7:43 PM
"This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability."
That seems quite rude
First, Arsalan doesn't claim that 59% of americans believe Barack Obama is a Muslim
he did once, but corrected his position to be 59% of Republicans
I think it is disingenuous to state as a premise of a question something that is refuted in the reference used to establish it
It does make the post "more accurate" and why would you think that the change is "completely superfluous"
I put the correction in a footnote so as to not "actively harm readability"
It's this kind of thing I was asking about when referring to niceness
 
8:01 PM
Are any mods around?
@Oddthinking?
@EbenezerSklivvze
?
 
8:46 PM
@nomenagentis - are you a regular user of chat here by any chance?
 
@anongoodnurse occasionally, but i don't enjoy it
 
@nomenagentis lol, ok! Thanks.
 
9:40 PM
@nomenagentis Feel free to complain about that on meta.stackexchange.com, it's part of the system.
 
10:02 PM
@EbenezerSklivvze What about your choice to use that rejection in the first place? Did you actually think that it didn't make the post more accurate?
I'm not sure what I was supposed to take away from that rejection
So I had to guess, and try again
 
10:13 PM
0
Q: The suggested edit rejection text can be nicer

nomen agentisThis is the suggested edit rejection reason: This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability. This seems unnecessarily harsh to me. Some alternatives:...

 
10:23 PM
@nomenagentis I appreciated the edit but it didn't really help fix the post in any way, and it did add a bottom-of-the-page callout which harmed readability.
 
0
Q: Are "what is this?" questions on topic now?

nomen agentisWhat is the source for the supposed "sound of hell"? This question asks, and gets an answer for, the question: what is the origin of this sound? Is this type of question on topic now? If so, has it always been?

 
10:36 PM
@EbenezerSklivvze Okay. I will leave long parentheticals in-line instead of as footnotes from now on.
@EbenezerSklivvze I thought that correcting the discrepancy between what user said Arsalan claims and what Arsalan actually claims would have been an improvement to the post, but I understand now that it isn't. Thank you.
@EbenezerSklivvze Also, I don't want to speak for you, but did you mean to be harsh when you chose that rejection-reason?
This comment says it is meant to be harsh
It is meant to be harsh. Users who get that message should be aware that they should improve their edits. They are wasting review effort. — rene 2 mins ago
Is that what you intended to communicate to me?
 
No: I simply chose the message which was closest to the reason why I rejected it. I don't even think it's meant to be harsh, just direct.
 
rene says it is meant to be harsh
 
Ok, that's their opinion... If it is, it's the first I hear of it.
@nomenagentis it's meant to be worded that way, but not to be harsh
We'll be changing "fails" to "does not" - I agree that was unnecessarily harsh. "Whatsoever", "even a little bit", and "completely" are intentional though: if you're rejecting edits that make posts a little bit easier to read, find, accurate or accessible (and hence are not completely superfluous) then you should probably ask yourself why - and then not use this rejection reason. — Shog9 ♦ Nov 12 '14 at 19:14
 
10:52 PM
I think direct or harsh are equal to me but if it makes a real difference for native speakers I can live with direct. And with that the message as reject reason is great, IMHO.
 
The background is that Nomen felt that the message was "rude"
 
"This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read" means the same thing as "This edit does not make the post easier to read", but the former is harsher/more-direct, with the negative outcome that it feels rude to some people.
 
@Shog9 ^^ ideas?
 
If it doesn't make the post easier to read, then it doesn't make the post even a little bit easier to read.
 
I'm not good at these wording games, I'll leave you to it. Good luck.
 
11:17 PM
@nomenagentis long discussion on this somewhere (maybe that thread linked above)? Essentially, we only have one set of guidance for both reviewers and editors, so the message has to communicate everything necessary to both of them.
In this case, it's important for the editor to know that the reviewer didn't see any improvement made by their edit.
And it's just as important for the reviewer to consider a different course of action for edits that make small improvements.
@EbenezerSklivvze Some day, I'd like to revisit that UI; Gilles had the idea of splitting it up, with separate guidance for reviewers and editors. But that's a big change for probably not a lot of benefit and there are bigger fish to fry for now.
 
@Shog9 those pop ups are hideous :-)
 
11:37 PM
clearly, they need to be more blue
also, this chat looks nice now
 

« first day (1748 days earlier)      last day (1460 days later) »