-4
\$\begingroup\$

Problem

The 'recent challenges' section is clogged up with nonsense.

Solution

Auto-delete challenges past a certain negative rep value, maybe -5.

Reasons for doing this

  • These challenges add nothing to the site.
  • Downvoting gains more power and lets the site users decide what sort of content should be ideal.
  • People can't spam low quality answers to easy challenges.
  • The site quality increases overall.

Potential problems with this

  • A group of users downvoting challenges randomly or targeted for no good reason

    Solution: have moderators review whether or not a challenge has been fairly downvoted. This should be obvious from the challenge quality.

  • Potentially good challenges getting deleted because they have negative rep.

    Solution: no good challenges ever have sufficiently low rep.

  • The site seems more hostile to new authors.

    Solution: improve guidelines on how to ask questions. The site is already hostile as questions will be closed instantly.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Not-really-a-problem: we have to hire 3x 20k users to do it. \$\endgroup\$ – user202729 Mar 9 at 3:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ "Downvoting gains more power" is not necessarily a good thing. \$\endgroup\$ – Redwolf Programs Mar 9 at 14:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ Maybe not, but it does mean people who don't have 20k+ rep have some influence on challenges being closed, which is good imo \$\endgroup\$ – rak1507 Mar 9 at 14:37
2
\$\begingroup\$

This already exists

It just waits for a while, so that people don't immediately have their challenge deleted. Furthermore, that's what 20k+ users and the moderator tools page are for.


More detailed: this is an awful idea. Sorry for the bluntness, but it just is. We have multiple challenges that have scores of -5 or more that are open and have a lot of answers, because a low score does not always mean that a challenge should be deleted.

Furthermore, this already exists in so many different ways:

  • This is exactly what delete votes are for
  • Spam flags for posts that should be quickly removed from the front page
  • The Roombas
  • Close votes are also a part of this system - you cannot delete a challenge that isn't closed.

Just as a comparison: currently, in order to delete a post at -5 it needs:

  • To have 5 users (or a moderator) close it, which requires either 3000 reputation (for a total of 15000 reputation), or to win a community election
  • To have 3 users (or a moderator) to delete it, which requires either 20000 reputation (for a total of 60000 rep), or again, to win an election.

If this were implemented, 5 users with 125 reputation each could delete any new question they liked, and, with enough people, any question.


Finally, if this isn't enough, I'll address each of your points:

  • "These challenges add nothing to the site."

    • Then they'll be deleted eventually by one of the above methods
  • "Downvoting gains more power and lets the site users decide what sort of content should be ideal."

    • Downvoting shouldn't have more power, that's what close votes and delete votes are for
  • "People can't spam low quality answers to easy challenges."

    • If a challenge is trivial enough to spam answers to, maybe it isn't a challenge we want on the site. A very often cited quote under trivial challenges is

    I can't tell you the reason for the other downvotes, but mine is because I firmly believe that trivial questions like this are bad for the site. - Peter Taylor

  • "The site quality increases overall."

    • At what cost though? We can suffer through a -7, closed, off-topic question hanging around the recently active questions page for an hour or two every so often. This would just be a detrimental change to the site, and isn't the best way to go about getting rid of such posts
  • "A group of users downvoting challenges randomly or targeted for no good reason. Solution: have moderators review whether or not a challenge has been fairly downvoted. This should be obvious from the challenge quality."

    • That's a lot of power to give to 4 users, and, perhaps more importantly, a lot of extra work, when we already have systems to do this. Moderators are supposed to be human exception handlers, not the users in change of what posts are and aren’t ok to have on the site
  • "Potentially good challenges getting deleted because they have negative rep. Solution: no good challenges ever have sufficiently low rep."

    • Maybe so. Another, better way to think about it is that "no good challenges are ever closed"\${}^*\$. As question deletion requires it to be closed, I think that's a better matric than score, which is almost 100% subjective
  • "The site seems more hostile to new authors. Solution: improve guidelines on how to ask questions. The site is already hostile as questions will be closed instantly."

    • Even if we do improve guidelines on asking, this is still a very hostile feature to have. No one likes getting downvotes, and no one likes have their contributions just suddenly disappear.

\${}^*\$Citation needed


TL;DR: This already exists

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • \$\begingroup\$ Why wait at all? A challenge having -10 score is clearly an indication that it is bad, and leaving it open for long enough that it gets 13 answers just decreases the average challenge quality and answer quality. \$\endgroup\$ – rak1507 Mar 9 at 3:12
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @rak1507 The current roomba only work if there's no upvoted answer and the question is closed, so if it gets 13 answers then it won't even be auto deleted in the current system. \$\endgroup\$ – user202729 Mar 9 at 3:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ @rak1507 If a challenge is on -10 and has 13 answers, either its clear enough to answer but its a poor challenge, or someone is answering a question that should be closed. The former means that the challenges shouldn't be deleted and the latter is a problem with the user, not the system \$\endgroup\$ – caird coinheringaahing Mar 9 at 3:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ Why shouldn't low quality challenges be deleted? \$\endgroup\$ – rak1507 Mar 9 at 3:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ @rak1507 See my edit \$\endgroup\$ – caird coinheringaahing Mar 9 at 3:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ChartZBelatedly thanks for the very in depth response I think you're right \$\endgroup\$ – rak1507 Mar 9 at 13:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .