« first day (1784 days earlier)      last day (1703 days later) » 

12:43 AM
@Scimonster I downvoted and voted to close several of those. The rest of the community wasn't as zealous.
 
 
2 hours later…
2:39 AM
I ran a data explorer query and I'm looking to find the link to a particular run, but I can't find the "permalink" link. Any ideas?
@MonicaCellio I believe it wouldn't work with SEDE
unless you did the query shortly enough after they were deleted that the deletion hasn't made it into the queryable DB yet
@msh210 Ooh apparently my PTIJ was even better than I realized :)
 
@Daniel the SEDE schema now has something about deleted posts IIRC, but the actual data isn't there. So unlikely to help.
@Daniel huh. I thought I'd seen that too but I can't find it either now.
 
@MonicaCellio I've definitely seen it before... today
but it's gone now
 
@Daniel oh hey, the PostsWithDeleted table has more data in it than I thought it did.
Darned if I can figure out how to use it to restrict by tag, though. :-(
 
3:08 AM
@mbloch (CC @msh210 @Yez) I would argue that the data doesn't show much correlation between number of questions and average score. If anything, it seems that there is a positive correlation between 3 and 6 or 7 questions.
take away the outlier at 2 questions and it looks even more like that
and there are only two users who posted above 7 questions, so generalizing from that data seems improper
 
We've had Purim Torah for several years; does data from past years reveal anything relevant?
 
3:28 AM
See this query: for a given number of PTIJ questions, the average of the average scores of all users who posted that many questions
And a similar query that includes all years of PTIJ. I think it's pretty clear that there's little correlation between number of questions and question quality (@MonicaCellio)
@mbloch We can see that in previous years, even above 7 questions has resulted in high average scores
 
@Daniel thanks. (I don't know if it'd reveal anything, but consider parameterizing by year so people can look at any one year's data by itself. Might not show anything, but if it turns out there was one wacky year, that'd be worth knowing.)
 
@MonicaCellio ooh good point. This is not a useful query
This counts the number of PTIJ questions a user has asked in all years
let me try to fix that up
 
@Daniel which might not account for learning over time.
If you can figure out how to show multiple lines on one graph in SEDE, that could be cool too -- each line represents your first query for one year. I don't know much about the graphing in SEDE, though.
 
@MonicaCellio The query I linked above has been fixed
It might tell a different story
but I'd say it's very difficult to draw any conclusions from it
 
@Daniel ah yes, that's less jagged. :-)
 
3:37 AM
(I'd prefer if someone could check my SQL) (@IsaacMoses @msh210)
 
But I agree it's difficult to draw conclusions from such a small, scattered data sample.
 
One thing I think it does show is that people generally self-regulate
If we were to create a rule limiting the number of questions, it would basically be a rule targeted at 1 or 2 people
Which I would tend to think is a Bad Idea
I guess the html tags don't work there
 
@Daniel data is clear that "more is not necessarily better" BUT the sample is indeed very small and you make a very good points that rules for 1-2 people are not ideal
thanks for improving the queries in a multi year context
 
@Daniel here it is with the year parameterized. The per-year results look kind of erratic. data.stackexchange.com/judaism/query/edit/461197#graph
 
@MonicaCellio Yeah, that just makes the sample size even smaller
 
3:44 AM
@Daniel yes. Maybe msh210's query parameterized would be more useful. I added the by-year parameter so we could see if any one year stood out somehow, since that could be enough to throw your multi-year query off. Having run it on each year, though, I don't really know what I'm looking at.
 
@mbloch Actually sample isn't that small for < 5 questions asked: data.stackexchange.com/judaism/query/461209
 
Here's @msh210's query parameterized for year: data.stackexchange.com/judaism/query/edit/461210#graph What this tells me is "ignore pre-2015 data 'cause it's wacky and small". But I am not an expert.
 
@MonicaCellio I updated my original query that includes multiple years to only include questions from year >= 2015
(link) for reference
 
Y'know what I really wish SEDE had? Axis labels on graphs. I keep having to remind myself what the unlabeled one is...
 
Looking at this data, I'm just not really seeing a trend that would lend itself to creating a rule mandating a maximum number of questions (@Yez)
@MonicaCellio So true
 
3:52 AM
@Daniel so far I agree; the data seems to be all over the place.
 
@Daniel you are right, I meant the sample for users with > 5 questions
 
In principle I like the recent suggestion (in broad strokes) that you can keep asking so long as you're maintaining a reasonable average, but (a) it's not clear the data supports it, (b) it'd be a pain to regulate, and (c) we don't do that for other tags. (Counter-argument for (c): PT can be held to a higher standard because it's inherently disruptive.)
 
@MonicaCellio I think that's more than just a pain to regulate. Are we going to run a SEDE query every time a user asks a question? What happens when they fall below the threshold? They're locked out of asking until they get some upvotes or delete some questions?
I don't really even think would solve the problem we're trying to fix. By the time the question gets deleted, the damage is already done
 
@Daniel yeah. I really don't want to have to police it in the ways that would be needed. I want us to self-regulate.
 
Self-regulation might mean updating the policy with an expectation that users will maintain a positive question record, or self-pace their questions. Wonder if best time to propose edits is now (while things are "hot") or next year
 
4:10 AM
@mbloch It looks like very few people didn't maintain a positive question record. And those that didn't aren't the people who asked lots and lots of questions
 
@Daniel depends how you define positive - we might decide that, in context of PTIJ, we want to set positive as >3 for instance, to ensure we limit the amount of lower-quality stuff disguised as PTIJ :->
 
@mbloch That's tough. What if the first question is a dud?
 
@Daniel that is why we might say there is a limit of 5 (no matter what their score), and one can go beyond if the average record across these is strong, see meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/a/3985/11501
 
5:12 AM
@Daniel Note that the 2 users it would impact make up about 35% of total PTIJ questions for this season... — Y ez 3 mins ago
Removing about 30% of low quality questions seems a pretty significant gain to me.
 
@Yez Sure. My point is that there isn't necessarily a connection between asking a lot of questions and asking poor questions
I think the exemption rule is a fair guideline
 
@Daniel There doesn't have to be.
 
But it would require someone to manually tally vote totals every time someone asked a question over #7
 
This policy would solve this problem whether the correlation is true or not. No one can flood with bad questions if they get cut off.
@Daniel Not every time. Only when someone has noticed a trend of many poor questions from one user.
@Daniel I didn't have to look at the data query to know you wouldn't be banned.
I knew the usernames of those 2 IDs without looking them up.
 
@Yez If you had asked one more question and it got a downvote, you would have been banned by the proposed criteria
(assuming that the number between 5 and 7 that was chosen was 6)
 
5:27 AM
@Daniel I didn't support the specific criteria suggested, but for the record I'd be fine with that. 6 questions seems like plenty for a 16 day period if they aren't particularly high quality. I don't ask anywhere near that volume of questions regularly.
(Although I would secretly have bitter feelings towards whoever cast that one downvote.)
 
@Yez :)
Ok well I need to head to bed now
TZT
 
@Daniel you too
 
 
8 hours later…
1:55 PM
@Aaron You asked help for a translation of YY few days ago. Is it actually?
 
 
2 hours later…
3:57 PM
I've been busy in real life and haven't read every message here. To explore the value of the PTIJ 24-hour rule, I made this query that calculates average score of PTIJ questions by how many hours (rounding down) since the last PTIJ question by the same user.
I played with different values for the buckets, and you can, too. Right now, it looks like maybe a 1-hour rule could be sufficient to get most of the quality benefit of such a rule.
Interestingly, it seems that people's first PTIJ post tends to be significantly higher-quality than their other PTIJ posts, so a one-per-season rule, although very onerous, could result in even higher quality.
... and people's first-ever PTIJ posts tend to be better still, so we could get really onerous and limit to once per lifetime. :)
 
4:17 PM
@IsaacMoses Fwiw, the same correlation does not exist for halacha (our highest-use tag) or for history (a fairly high-use tag).
 
To bolster the idea that PTIJ uniquely deserves such a rule, take a look at this query for all questions and this one that lets you pick a tag. It seems that PTIJ is special in having a first-hour effect.
In other words, what @msh210 said. :)
 
In other news, yydl is arguably our best asker as measured by whether one's questions have positive score.
 
@msh210 Yeyasher kocho!
He has asked 300+ questions, 100% of which are positive-scored. Honorable menchen with 200+ questions and 99% positive scores: Monica, yEz, Shalom
400+ and 97%: msh210 and SethJ
 
4:56 PM
@IsaacMoses *Y ez
 
5:16 PM
@IsaacMoses And 200+ and 97%: Shmuel Brin and Daniel
Also honorable menschen, with 100% but not quite so inquisitive: a whole bunch of users.
 
5:29 PM
@Kouty Sorry it's taken me so long! Yes i still need help. i'm preparing sources for a class and sometimes Rabbinic Hebrew is a bit more specific or nuanced than i can handle.
@kouty Could you help me translate point ב in this picture? i only need ב for the top section regarding laws of the type of grain/flour for matzah.
 
5:45 PM
The newsletter is really very well done. I searched on meta but didn't find the answer to this question: are the mods editing it manually? or is it entirely algorithmically generated? Thanks !
 
@mbloch We don't touch it. I don't think the SE staff does, either.
@Aaron You're looking for this in French?
 
@msh210 No, English
 
@Aaron Note that there are two points ב.
 
@msh210 Yes i only need the top section. The bottom section is about resting water, and i've got that section settled
 
@Aaron In that case, based on @kouty 's posts on Mi Yodeya -- which are excellent but WADR not in the best English -- you might consider asking someone else instead.
@Aaron You want a more literal translation or an easier-to-read translation?
 
5:59 PM
@msh210 Either. i just need to make sure i know what he's saying
@msh210 Because every now and again i'll try and translate something and i miss a nuance that changes things
 
@Aaron 2. The matza we fulfill our obligation with on the first night of Pesach must be watched from the time of reaping and hand-made. Where it's impossible to obtain matza watched from the time of reaping, but [one can obtain matza watched] from the time of grinding or from the time of kneading, we fulfill our obligation with it, in a situation of pressure, and can say the "about eating matza" benediction on such matza. That's for wheat that as obtained from gentiles, ground by a Jew, and watched from that time on, but not watched from the time of reaping. But matza that was not watched from the time of kneading and on -- obviously one must not say a benediction [on it] and we do not fulfill our obligation with it. (Chazon Ovadya on laws of Pesach, page 102. As to whether its need for watching from the time of reaping is by law or beyond the letter of the law, see Yabia Omer volume 9 OC 40 and volume 10 OC 35:11.)
 
@msh210 Thanks. It is definitely a bit clunky. i don't know how one could verify that it was ground by a Jew. i was hoping he would address whether one could buy flour from the shuk as is brought down in the shulchan arukh
 
@Aaron I'd venture that perhaps "ground by a Jew" is referring to the "from the time of grinding" case and not the "form the time of kneading" case, but really don't know. See Chazon Ovadya, I guess. And obviously for practical questions cylor.
 
@mbloch it's system-generated. I thought I'd seen an explanation on meta but I couldn't find it (so maybe it was some child meta), so I've just asked how the content is chosen.
 
@msh210 Yeah i'm not worried. i've got my own flour grinder, and i'm a Jew so there's no worry. i was just hoping he'd be clear because there's a lot of obscurafication regarding this issue
 
6:19 PM
@MonicaCellio thanks a lot Monica for two reasons. One is for surfacing the answer (here) and two for making me feel less bad for missing duplicates at times when searching :->>
 
@msh210 Would having flour with an OU hecsher count as being ground by a Jew?
 
I forgot three: for reminding me that searching meta.judaism for this sort of things is a mistake, I should have searched meta.stackexchange - stupid me
 
@mbloch And, just so you know, I've generally found that searching via Google for meta stack whatever usually works better than searching via MSE's own search for whatever. (But if I know or strongly suspect that what I'm looking for is in a post tagged faq, then I might use MSE's own search for [faq]whatever.)
@Aaron I can't imagine why it would. But he seems (perhaps) to equate guarded from the time of kneading with guarded from the time of grinding anyway.
 
@msh210 thanks for this - seems a very useful tip
 
@msh210 When i called the OU they had a similar answer. Their normal kosher for passover flour is guarded from kneading only, but they were confident that the grain was dry during the milling process. But when i asked for proof they said it was confidential.
 
6:37 PM
@msh210 lol ~(-;|]
 
@mbloch that one is really weird -- not only did it not turn up in my searches, but it didn't turn up in the list of questions with that tag, even though it has the tag. I'll do some more poking later and maybe ask a question about that.
I asked about "content" and the other asked about "questions", so I can see that not matching in a search. But the tag thing is puzzling.
@mbloch not stupid. If you're active on several sites you learn to check MSE; if you're mainly active on one, that's less intuitive.
 
7:03 PM
@Aaron I don't know what that's similar to, or how.
 
 
2 hours later…
9:03 PM
I don't know (and Google isn't helping me discover) who it was who said that you can read the history of an organization in its bylaws.
I'm reminded of that statement on reading @IsaacMoses 's proposal.
 
9:44 PM
@msh210 Or:
Also, a haiku I recently wrote about my job:
Track curcuit naming, with its complicated quirks, tells the rails' story
 
10:31 PM
Anyone else want to take a hand at sorting out a dupe for judaism.stackexchange.com/q/69851/759 ?
 
11:27 PM
@DoubleAA Well done closing it before it became a misdirected debate-fest
 

« first day (1784 days earlier)      last day (1703 days later) »