6
\$\begingroup\$

There seems to be a user that I keep noticing answering questions with answers that are generally related to the question but only in the vaguest sense rather than specifically addressing the question at hand.

I've downvoted and flagged a few of them, though I am concerned if I start downvoting too many of them the system will assume that I am attacking the specific user. Additionally it seems that the users answers are consistently appearing as having been flagged as low quality in the moderation queue, along with several being answers to questions which are several years old and long since forgotten.

As such I want to put it to the folk here as to whether or not my suspicions are correct, and also give the user a chance to respond if they are real (I've had no response to comments on the answers).

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ If not a bot, it is a user who needs a serious talking to - which I can't, because my idea for a "hey you, listen here" limited message system has not been documented (by me) yet. \$\endgroup\$
    – Asmyldof
    Commented Dec 26, 2016 at 13:27
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ What user is that? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 27, 2016 at 12:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ @DanielTork W5VO edited the username out. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 27, 2016 at 17:30
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ I'd have thought that, within meta, naming the user would not be seen as 'name & shame' but be useful to allow others to see what is being talked about. As it is, the user name is available by viewing edits. It seems they have no acquired some rep but the related answers do not appear against their account - so presumably they have been deleted. So, the name is available but the examples are not (easily) seen :-(. \$\endgroup\$
    – Russell McMahon Mod
    Commented Dec 28, 2016 at 23:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Russell: I just checked, and his 8 answers are still linked to from his profile. Sometimes it can be confusing when you accidentally get into the meta version of someone's profile. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 30, 2016 at 15:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ Agh. Silly me. `st time I've done that. I think. I'll do it better next year :-). \$\endgroup\$
    – Russell McMahon Mod
    Commented Dec 31, 2016 at 3:52
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @RussellMcMahon Moderating misbehaving users is a task for diamond moderators and not for meta people/user moderators. Therefore the correct approach for issues like this is to flag for diamond mod attention. So there is never a need to name a certain user in public. \$\endgroup\$
    – Lundin
    Commented Jan 3, 2017 at 8:43

2 Answers 2

6
\$\begingroup\$

No, he isn't a robot; just a new user who has a very mistaken idea about how this site works.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Please consider telling us how you arrived at that conclusion. \$\endgroup\$
    – cp.engr
    Commented Jan 8, 2017 at 23:07
9
\$\begingroup\$

I'm new as well, and have sometimes felt that the community was a bit hostile. His answers look well intended.

Perhaps you could put some faith in that the up/down vote system will promote quality answers without deterring people from trying to participate?

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ When people don't participate properly, we do want to deter them. Put another way, if they can't shape up, its better for all if they ship out. We have plenty of users here. Not gaining a few new ones is of no concern. Quality, however, is a high concern. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 30, 2016 at 15:02
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Okay, but in what way doesn't the voting system ensure that in itself? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 30, 2016 at 15:24
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ Your feelings are shared by thousands. Just Google for "stack exchange hostile." 81,900 hits tonight. Not sure about the voting system efficacy. Every question asked gets down voted at least once. It can be a bit of a mine field for even the well intended. \$\endgroup\$
    – Paul Uszak
    Commented Jan 1, 2017 at 2:53
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I do not think the community here is hostile, as such. We will, however, pull users up if their answers are not clear and to the point where that is appropriate or where an answer adds nothing to answers already given. This is in the normal style of electronics designers. As Olin notes, quality is of primary importance. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 2, 2017 at 15:23
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I am also new I have only been participating seriously for a couple of weeks. The community is not hostile. There are however some very good very experienced contributers and they do not suffer fools gladly. It is worth taking the time to "decode" the system here. If you ask good questions you will get good answers. In terms of answers see the comment above. \$\endgroup\$
    – RoyC
    Commented Jan 3, 2017 at 0:04
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ FWIW, as a veteran user of several SE sites, I find the EE community significantly more hostile than on other Stack Exchange sites and there is a higher moderator acceptance for rude behavior here. Possibly because this site has a higher frequency of crap posts than other sites(?) given the broad scope. \$\endgroup\$
    – Lundin
    Commented Jan 3, 2017 at 9:00
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ @RoyC The requirement to ask good questions is one of SE's fundamental flaws which purposefully /inadvertently leads to elitism. Any experienced researcher will tell you that the majority of an answer is knowing exactly what question to ask. In a progressive forum, it is the responsibility of the experienced to help draw the question from the uninformed. As in a courtroom, successful council will tease out the facts from an Average Joe witness. They don't down vote them, "deter" and call them "fools" as some have in the above comments. That's elitist and ultimately self defeating. \$\endgroup\$
    – Paul Uszak
    Commented Jan 5, 2017 at 0:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6046/possible-robot-user/6057
electronics.meta.stackexchange.com
CC-MAIN-2024-26
137852
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:S6HNW3LU3PR4RNAQODDGTT2MBZY4FQG5
<urn:uuid:d4485c58-be22-465a-a67c-24b2c71b7582>
2024-06-12T21:36:33Z
104.18.43.226
text/html
sha1:TYASI3BOAUJN6NARU2UX6YKG5CGQF67H
<urn:uuid:1e87d42b-63a4-4582-a52c-3aa7ce51c24a>
https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6046/possible-robot-user/6057
response
<urn:uuid:475ded83-4807-41e0-86e0-db1f51fd7186>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-26
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-207
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/