« first day (1863 days earlier)      last day (1371 days later) » 

ColleenV
ColleenV
1:36 AM
@M.A.R. baloney. Close votes are not anonymous and there’s no reason people shouldn’t be held accountable
Refusing to tell people how to find public information because you don’t want it to be too public is stupid.
If the information is dangerous, it shouldn’t be public
Having it do only some people who know how to DB queries can find it because obviously those are the only people who can be trusted with it is ridiculous
 
AIQ
AIQ
2:03 AM
like everyone keeps saying it is dangerous ... what is so dangerous about it? What can I do after knowing the internet name of the person who keeps on close-voting my questions? Downvote one or two of their answers?
that's not dangerous ...
 
 
8 hours later…
M.A.R.
M.A.R.
10:22 AM
@ColleenV People are being held accountable if need be. Close votes aren't anonymous, and they're pretty visible on every question's timeline, the review link, and a few other places. Now what would knowing that userX close voted my crappy questions 12 times and userY 15 achieve? Why does this specific piece of info need to be public, other than to be used to 'exact revenge' on said close voters.
@AIQ It's not dangerous but it's hella annoying and it's rather preferable that dev time not be wasted on something that's gonna be hella annoying.
I urge you to read that request again. It's not requesting close votes be public. They already are. It's requesting an extra tab in the user page for "personal enemy #1" "personal enemy #2" and so on. Why on Earth is this information of any legitimate use?
Of course, it's possible that the close voter has an agenda against a specific OP. How is a number going to reveal that? A number that's going to be heavily skewed by how many reviews a close voter does everyday, and how many questions the OP asks, and to prove it's bias and agenda and not simply that the OP's questions would be close-worthy is extensive work and again, the number wouldn't help that.
That it needs five users every time to agree with closing a question (except on SO) mostly mitigates close voter abuse already. You then need a team of people very knowledgeable about the workings of a site, to decide that there is a disproportionately high number of wrongful closures in this OP's case.
(Also note that this wouldn't make any sense except with OPs with >100 questions, a minute fraction of network users already)
EVEN then, how are you going to prove malintent and that it wasn't simply a case of lack of knowledge on the close voter's side, presumably resulting in a review ban?
And how is a single number in a list going to be of any help to 1) discerning the closures are wrong 2) proving malintent?
Oh no no, I think this would instead be used by people who consider every closure evil to find targets to downvote everyday. Extra hassle for them, extra hassle for the script, extra hassle for the mods, and lots of negative UX for the power users who care about the site.
So what can an OP do? They can only contest the closure of one of their questions, or several, if they're so certain they know the site enough to know they're wrong. The onus is on the OP not to post closeable questions in the first place, so if they did, and if a certain user closed a lot of them rightfully, what case can the OP make?
@M.A.R. This number is also affected by the amount of overlap in the areas the OP and the close voter are active in, in bigger sites when people sort by tags and are active in a certain tag, or when people share the same niche tag. It's also affected by timezones.
So the crux of my argument is that to prove mass-closing abuse, you need a deep case-by-case analysis, backed by the community's opinion, and even then notice a visible pattern that can be safely attributed to malintent and not ignorance. The huge amount of work this needs dwarfs finding about a single useless data point that's skewed by many innocuous and unrelated factors.

In the meanwhile, what the number *will* accomplish is that folks who consider all closing evil are aided in their personal vendetta against prolific close voters, to serially downvote them or annoy or harass them in a…
 
 
3 hours later…
SmokeDetector
SmokeDetector
1:51 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at end of answer, potentially bad ip for hostname in answer (61): How to find the right adjective to a word? by Dany Dol on ell.SE
 
 
2 hours later…
AIQ
AIQ
4:04 PM
When I see one of my friends, I say "How is your morning going?"
What should I say when I see two or more of them?
They each have a different morning, no? "How are your mornings going?" That sounds awful!
 
 
1 hour later…
AIQ
AIQ
5:22 PM
Woah! Colin Fine commented on my question ...
 

« first day (1863 days earlier)      last day (1371 days later) »