« first day (2169 days earlier)      last day (58 days later) » 

glS
8:02 AM
@FDGod ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯
 
glS
8:31 AM
@user1271772 wait actually, trolling aside, I just realised that with "the user that is listed at #2 in Meta participation this month and #3 over the site's 5.5 year history" you probably were referring to yourself?
does that mean you didn't get pinged? Because I did ping you in the first message... you should be 263595. Which makes me wonder whether the superping worked at all. Maybe only MarkS was pinged because I pinged them in a different way in the following message
@AdamZalcman hi, sorry to bother. Can I ask you whether you got a notification a few days ago for this message?
Feb 12 at 8:38, by glS
@@72334 @@284289 @@263595 @@584407 @@28651 @@344939 @@100585 @@523418 @@507535 @@508689 @@438 @@449145 @@480184 Hi y'all. Apologies for the chat ping. It's not very conventional, but I'm trying this as an alternative method to get a better understanding about people's thoughts on some policies, given that meta doesn't really work when there's not enough people being vocal. Obviously, feel free to completely ignore this discussion if you don't want to engage in it.

Also, I more or less hand-picked a bunch of users whose names I remembered having interacted recently on the site, simply beca
 
9:15 AM
Hi gIS! No, I didn't. Assuming @@-syntax expects a user ID mine is 10480 which is not on the list.
 
glS
@AdamZalcman thanks for letting me know. The ID I used was the chat user ID (I think)... which was the one the system automatically puts there when I type your name. It's also the same ID I used now, which seems to have worked this time around... although the system did correctly replace it with your name this time. It might be an issue with pinging multiple people at the same time. Let me try that again
@NorbertSchuch @MarkS @user1271772 @FDGod @AdamZalcman @DaftWullie @CraigGidney @TristanNemoz @Egretta.Thula @QuantumMechanic @NieldeBeaudrap @MartinVesely @luciano
 
Got a ping this time!
 
glS
well, it seems it now worked given it correctly replaced IDs with names. To everyone who was just pinged, I'll rewrite the previous message here:
Hi y'all. Apologies for the chat ping. It's not very conventional, but I'm trying this as an alternative method to get a better understanding about people's thoughts on some policies, given that meta doesn't really work when there's not enough people being vocal. Obviously, feel free to completely ignore this discussion if you don't want to engage in it
Also, I more or less hand-picked a bunch of users whose names I remembered having interacted recently on the site, simply because I couldn't invite everyone. Let me know if you think someone else should be pinged. I will link this chat on the meta post anyway.
reason for the message is https://quantumcomputing.meta.stackexchange.com/q/618/55. I'm a bit confused by the votes, so I'm looking to understand better people's opinions on it. And chat might be better suited for this kind of discussion
and here's the link to the previous discussion with MarkS (which was the only one that was correctly pinged at the time):
Feb 12 at 8:45, by glS
eg, @MarkS, I really appreciate your reply, but I'm not sure what you're actually suggesting on a more practical note. At the end of the day, I'm 99% talking about posts that are near-simultaneously (say, few days apart) posted, are identical (at least as posted by the OP), and are not marked as cross-posts. Do you think those should be allowed/tolerated?
@AdamZalcman let's see if the others did as well. Your getting a ping now is "easier" because you're already in the chat, so a normal ping would have worked as well. However chat normally doesn't allow to ping people that have not been in it recently. Mods can use a "superping" (the double-@ syntax) to do it, but well, I haven't really tested it that much, and sometimes it gives me weird outcomes
 
9:43 AM
I just got a ping too.
 
Me too :)
 
 
1 hour later…
10:57 AM
@glS Ironically, in the notification list it is displayed with numerical IDs.
As for the crossposts, I fully agree with the issue, but I don't see any good solution. Migration is a slippery slope, in particular with pre-defined migration paths, and any solution (closure, migration) would require at least a similar amount of intervention (and/or from more users) than adding a reference or leaving a comment. -- Just to keep things concrete, how many posts are we talking about? (And yes, I can understand you find it annoying to cross-link those posts, even ...
... if it is a small number: But any solution would only reduce work for users who do so repeatedly, and I don't think that is too many.
So my feeling is that the status quo -- though not great -- is probably the best we have.
 
 
3 hours later…
1:54 PM
@glS what did you do differently this time?
 
glS
2:44 PM
@user1271772 I copy-pasted the same line I used before to ping people
@NorbertSchuch it is true that even closing would still require some intervention. It'd at least be less work than manually editing two questions each time adding links etc.
thinking about it, maybe I can automatise it with a userscript running on my browser though. Shouldn't be that hard.
@NorbertSchuch searching quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/… brings up 68 such posts (that have been marked), which I guess works as a rough estimate. I don't have statistics as a function of time, but it's not that rare of an occurrence. It's not a huge number, but enough to get annoying after a while
 
3:05 PM
@glS This is of course only easier if you single-handedly close it as a mod. But I fully sympathize that it is is annoying to cross-reference this by hand, I admit of having repeatedly not done it for that reason.
@glS Agreed, I have been annoyed by it as well ...
... though in the end this will stick with the few users who frequent both QCSE and PSE.
 
 
1 hour later…
4:27 PM
:65209825
Sometimes the ping feature in chat doesn't seem consistent in the way it works. For example, I purposely sent the above message to show that what would usually appear as @glS, instead appeared as :65209825 because I hit the backspace button once. I don't have experience with the super-ping feature that you were trying to use though.
As for cross-posts: I have made ~3400 edits on a site that's ~4 years old. The user on QCSE that has made the most edits, has made ~3900 edits on QCSE, but over a span of closer to 6 years (this user happens to be you). The point is that I make more edits on that site per unit time than anyone on QCSE does on QCSE. My opinion is that there's many things that are far more annoying than having to deal with cross-posted questions. I also disagree with the idea of banning them entirely.
 
 
3 hours later…
7:41 PM
@glS I also just got the ping. I wasn't pinged in the first message.
As for the cross-posting issue, I agree with what @MarkS said, and there is no good solution for this, but I would say we should not disallow cross-posting.
@glS I think this is a "good" solution, adding a custom comment and/or link to a dedicated post on Meta explaining the policy
 
7:56 PM
@FDGod The point is, ideally the users cross-posting should do that (also out of kindness to those who answer -- it is rather annoying to write an answer, just to realize afterwards the question has already been answered on the other site).
 
@FDGod The part about that solution that I don't like, is the eagerness to close such a question so quickly. I still haven't fully recovered from my first experience with QCSE, back when the site first launched.
I had quite a bit of experience on the SE network since some of the earliest days of StackOverflow. I put quite a lot of effort and time into writing my first question, but it almost immediately got comments saying that it was inappropriate for the site because it's "not about quantum computing":
The question was also downvoted (which now might shock a lot of users), and I didn't know this at the time, but closed questions with a net negative score are automatically deleted within 7 days. By the time I had a chance to try to improve the question, it was gone.
I was shocked that all the work that I put into that question was lost so quickly (and back then you couldn't get it back, since the feature to view your deleted questions didn't get introduced until about 5 years after this happened).
That was a negative experience for me, and lead to more negative experiences with this community in its early days. My advice is: do not be so eager to rapidly close questions. Instead, why not leave a friendly comment suggesting what needs to be changed, then if the user really ignores all advice, by all means close the question if it's harming the site, but give the user a chance first.
 
Maybe this shows that mods shouldn't close or delete questions unilaterally.
 
@NorbertSchuch It was voted to be closed by 5 people, most of them had very little knowledge about quantum computing.
 
Please don't bring up the question of knowledge again.
It is quite cryptic, the way it is written, and one has put effort into understanding its connection to QC.
... I indeed mistook the deletion by a mod with a closure ...
 
@NorbertSchuch that's quite a rude "command", I don't appreciate you talking to me like that.
 
8:10 PM
... which brings up the question why it was deleted by a mod.
 
I don't mind your comment about the effort that needs to be put into understanding its connection to QC.
 
But it has been discussed at length that moderation is done by the community, and not by "knowledge of quantum computing". This model certainly has many flaws, but that's the way it is.
 
However, mithrandir wrote a comment to Blue, that was later deleted, which said something like "Blue, when I see "Pauli matrices", "k-locality", and [XYZ], I immediately would conclude that it's about quantum information", then he provided a link to a Meta post that explained that we were supposed to welcome such questions.
@NorbertSchuch I don't agree with you about this, but my request is for you to be more polite when communicating with me. There's many ways that you could have pointed out your opinion about how moderation is supposed to work, and in my opinion you chose one of the rudest ones.
 
In the past, you repeatedly and insistently tried to make the point on QC.SE that competence in quantum computing, as witnessed by a PhD degree and the like, should be a central qualification for moderation, and for deciding about policies here. This has, I believe, generally been rejected by the community, and is also against SE policies. I asked you to not bring up this topic again, starting with "Please". I don't see how this would be "one of the rudest" ways to bring up this topic.
@user1271772 Given that it doesn't say who closed, I am a bit puzzled how you come to the conclusion that "most of them had very little knowledge about quantum computing".
 
@NorbertSchuch I don't think the question is "cryptic". I do admit that I didn't mention quantum computing or quantum information explicitly, but I think that you would agree that it was an appropriate question for QCSE, especially when it was a brand new site at the time.
 
8:22 PM
@user1271772 I think describing what the question is about in the main body -- and beyond just the title, i.e. giving some context -- would have been helped the question a lot. Right now, without re-reading the title it is not even clear until towards the end of the question that it is about n qubits.
... I have to admit that I still have difficulties understanding what precisely you want to know when I read the question.
 
@NorbertSchuch starting with "Please" does not give you an excuse to be rude. In fact you can make a sentence even ruder by adding "please". I disagree that I "repeatedly and insistently" tried to make a point about a PhD "and the like" being a "central qualification" for moderation "and for deciding about policies here".
I think you have crossed a line in terms of trying to air out dirty laundry in a chat room with many new users here. If you want to talk to me privately about this, let's do it, but I think you have crossed a line here.
4 mins ago, by Norbert Schuch
@user1271772 Given that it doesn't say who closed, I am a bit puzzled how you come to the conclusion that "most of them had very little knowledge about quantum computing".
Fairly recently, users have been given the option to see their own deleted questions.
By looking at the question, I can look at the timeline, and see who voted to close the question.
3 mins ago, by Norbert Schuch
@user1271772 I think describing what the question is about in the main body -- and beyond just the title, i.e. giving some context -- would have been helped the question a lot. Right now, without re-reading the title it is not even clear until towards the end of the question that it is about n qubits.
Sure, but it is "clear" towards the end that the question is about n qubits. I totally agree that the question can be improved, but was it inappropriate for QCSE?
If a new users posted that question today, would you downvote it, write comments about how it's inappropriate for QCSE, then close it within a few hours without giving the user any chance to improve it?
 
8:38 PM
So you have to "re-read" the title, and "wait until the end" to know that the question is about n qubits? That tells me that the title and the end of the question make it clear that the question is about n qubits. There's very little between the title and the end of the question, so I'm surprised that you're arguing about this, but I have no problem with being told that the question needs improvement.
The problem was the very quick closure (and deletion) and downvoting, with comments that the question was inappropriate for QCSE because it "wasn't about quantum computing".
 

« first day (2169 days earlier)      last day (58 days later) »