-22

This question already has an answer here:

After my experience earlier with a question that has a large reach and has shown that it is clearly a valued community resource (both on and off Stack Overflow), I have done a little thinking which could address this long-standing problem which has been discussed before including, but not limited to, possibly imposing a time restriction from following a link from meta before being able to vote on a question.

Thus far, the solutions offered as suggestions can only provide a band-aid to what is a social dilemma.

The problem with the Meta effect is well documented, but summarizing in my own words here to keep the sanity of this article for future use, is, whenever an article is linked to on meta it creates an effect where otherwise potentially good standing reference material takes a hit, which may carry more weight from tone of the meta topic than the article in question.

This problem while seemingly innocuous, has been known to damage or otherwise cause harm to valued information by the community at large, usually in the form of multiple downvotes and/or closure or a series of closure attempts on an article that in it's capacity by votes from the community on the questions and answers and number of views, has proven to be deemed worthy of keeping.

What I propose, is a form of aging mechanism where if the question has been around a while, that if the link to it is found in meta, downvotes should not be allowed (see rest of article for proposed enhanced voting mechanism) if the question was in good standing (and mature) prior to the link existing in meta.

While some might argue this would 'break' the system and allow bad posts, I put forth the argument that this would not actually break the system as the community at large had already deemed it worthy and relevant information.

Lets take the 'cake recipe' example as someone pointed out before. Under this notion, the claim is that someone could post a cake recipe which is not relevant to Stack Overflow, and that it would somehow stand the test of time because users are finding what they seek, and thus would just upvote it. I disagree with this notion as a cake recipe, would be unlikely to pass muster with the question review system for posting a new question, and several people "the community" (at large) watching the list of new questions would almost immediately flag it as a bad question.

Additionally, I am aware that older articles come up for review from time to time, so there is a continuance in play to ensure that the article passes as relevant, and such.

The meta effect changes this, in that even though an article is in good standing, and has shown it's value to the community at large, it gets swarmed and downvoted / close requested. It is unfortunate, but this is a mob mentality when presented with something in a negative context, the reaction is often negative and immediate bias. I do not believe this is healthy for the community at large as Stack Overflow has become something that people rely upon. While information may go stale, links go bad, etc. It is not fair for an article to be subject to the meta effect simply due to being mentioned after years of good standing.

If there wasn't a review system in place that periodically pops up old articles to double-check, and there wasn't a community at large, and meta was the only way to ensure articles pass muster, then I would be in agreement with the effect. However there are already numerous checks and balances in place already which I feel that if thousands of community members have given their approval by vote (or not voting at all), that this should also be considered when engaging as a participant to cause a meta effect. This is why I feel that the maturity of an article must be taken into consideration and a vote lockout if the question appears in meta and the question is mature. The flagging system can still be in place, but possibly it could require more votes to take an action? Like a close request on a meta linked question could take 25 votes instead of 5. This would allow the community at large who voted for the questions value over the years to have a chance to participate in the decision to close.

There should also be a 'objections to close` link where close votes are there. Currently, there is only the negative portion signaling only the number of close requests, but not the number of requests to keep it open.

To keep it fair, there should be a second count allowing the community to vote in either direction -- keep, or close. Whichever one reaches 25 or some arbitrary number first, wins the request, and the question is locked at that status and then protected.

Just some thoughts on the preservation of keeping good information while still eliminating the junk data.

From the comments I posted explaining this further:

My proposal only applies to articles that are both mature (maturity / aging system TBD), and in good standing. I do feel that these articles should be vote-locked until such a time that the article is either voted "keep" and moved to protected articles, or voted "close" and marked as close or deleted. No further action on the traditional voting segment should be allowed. It is sort of a secondary vote mechanism, but ONLY for mature articles in good standing. Rest would be subject to standard meta effect as it does apply on newer articles.


The dilemma is that it is not extra attention, it is a select few who happen to be browsing meta at the time. Usually 10 or so people (approximately) which is sufficient to override what thousands over an extended period of time have deemed valuable. This process is unfair to those thousands who have given approval when it only takes a couple people and a mention to undo everything that the community at large, has deemed valuable. A question vote lock until a poll from the community at large has been completed to decide to keep or not, seems legitimate.


Provided that if it shows votes to close, then it should also show votes to keep. Possible even add a close of poll date for the period of a month? Just give the community at large a chance to decide before killing it, is all I am intending here. (I have not seen a question brought up in meta, get a series of upvotes -- so while the "for better" portion makes it sound fair, in reality, it isn't).


the main problem here is that the closures happens by a select few rapidly without giving the rest of the community at large any real chance. for that chance to happen for the thousands of people to have their say they would all have to be online and focused on that article during the few minutes it takes for the closure and downvotes to occur. I am proposing a system where if something has been linked on meta that it has a chance to get feedback from a larger portion of the community before anything radical happens to the post.

marked as duplicate by gnat, ArK, user6263819, Glorfindel, ST3 Aug 4 '16 at 8:59

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 4
    I believe some people would disagree it and think: "I don't care how I found the post, just consider to vote the post I found" – ggrr Aug 4 '16 at 3:13
  • @amuse - this wouldn't prevent that -- in my poll suggestion which would require a larger and more fair base for the community at large to decide. Close votes typically garner a negative reaction spurring more close votes, but I am speaking from meta, this happens way too fast to give the community at large any real opportunity to have their say. Topics are closed within minutes of a link being published here, by only a handful of meta users -- not the community at large's decision. – Kraang Prime Aug 4 '16 at 3:22
  • While times and rules change, and information validity fluctuates, I am merely proposing a solution that gives the community at large the chance to decide on what to do with the more mature articles that may or may not be within current standards of the site. – Kraang Prime Aug 4 '16 at 3:24
  • 1
    I don't think voting is always fair, but forbid voting is more unfair because users cannot express their opinion, and "handful of meta users" is also a part of community. Also even a question is closed it can still be reopened later – ggrr Aug 4 '16 at 3:28
  • @amuse - If a post is linked to from meta community and it is a mature article in good standing, then it should be converted into a poll to decide to keep or close. Either showing both close and keep votes, or keeping them anonymous and hidden. The count required should be increased to take into account the larger portion of the community than those who happen to be online reading meta, and the final tally after reaching X goal or 30 days (as an example) would be the final decision on what happens to the article. – Kraang Prime Aug 4 '16 at 3:31
  • My proposal only applies to articles that are both mature (maturity / aging system TBD), and in good standing. I do feel that these articles should be vote-locked until such a time that the article is either voted "keep" and moved to protected articles, or voted "close" and marked as close or deleted. No further action on the tradtional voting segment should be allowed. It is sort of a secondary vote mechanism, but ONLY for mature articles in good standing. Rest would be subject to standard meta effect as it does apply on newer articles. – Kraang Prime Aug 4 '16 at 3:34
  • @gnat - clearly you did not actually read the question. I already addressed that this is NOT a 24 hour suspension of voting. This is an alternative voting mechanism. – Kraang Prime Aug 4 '16 at 7:44
  • I supposed this is what I get for trying to post something constructive. It is met with the exact same level of hostility as anything else here. – Kraang Prime Aug 4 '16 at 7:45
  • "a form of aging mechanism where if the question has been around a while, that if the link to it is found in meta, down-votes should not be allowed" – gnat Aug 4 '16 at 7:46
  • 2
    I suppose upvotes should be disallowed too? The meta effect can work in both ways. – Sayse Aug 4 '16 at 8:16
  • 4
    It happens, normally when someone asks why has something been downvoted when it legitimately does have some quality. But either way, the meta effect isn't a bad thing. Remember, SO is trying to build a collection of content that remains useful, relying on external content makes that hard to do. – Sayse Aug 4 '16 at 8:31
  • 4
    @sayse bonus points for recognising and voicing that the meta effect isn't bad. It often gets confused with its evil step sister - the angry mob effect. The effect of meta is generally quite positive; site bugs get fixed, doubts get resolved, site features get better explained, site abusers get dealt with, poor content gets handled, wrongly closed/deleted content gets re-instated, poor review audit targets get yanked, etc. Such a beautiful thing this meta effect of ours. – Gimby Aug 4 '16 at 9:29
  • 1
    It wasn't closed, nor put on hold. – Bart Aug 4 '16 at 9:46
  • 3
    And on a last note, your classification of us as "a mob who has already decided that abusing powers granted is acceptable" demonstrates you know very little of Meta, how it works and what the meta effect actually is. Seems you were set on a conclusion from the very start. – Bart Aug 4 '16 at 9:50
  • 3
    You know, for a minute there I thought you were interested in a real discussion. Then you found out people disagree with you, and you started calling them idiots and ran away. Now you'll tell people that you were bullied out of here by the "mob", and other people with an attitude similar to yours will come here and behave the same way, leading to the inevitable conclusion of them insulting people and running away. And round and round it will go. And all because an old question you asked received more views from people in a position to judge its usefulness properly. Sheesh. – Clive Aug 4 '16 at 11:10
14

TL; DR: Just because we gave a post some extra attention doesn't mean it should be treated differently.

The vast majority of questions posted on Meta are NOT good ones. They're terrible. The fact that they haven't been voted into oblivion by the community is a result of the fact that they simply haven't received enough views. While the Meta effect clearly can lead to superfluous upvotes, the downvotes are often just useful filtering of another question on Meta.

This is somewhat akin to saying "If someone was an OK guy before we did a press release about him, people shouldn't be allowed to think poorly of him following the press release."

What's way more common: "He was a criminal before the press release, people shouldn't be allowed to think poorly of him because the media reported on it."

No. People are not likely to have formed any opinion prior to the press release. The "press release" here is obviously the meta post; a surge of new attention to the question. They can choose to vote however they like, be it up or down.

A voting lock would prevent those questions from getting further upvotes and downvotes.

  • 1
    The dilemma is that it is not extra attention, it is a select few who happen to be browsing meta at the time. Usually 10 or so people (approximately) which is sufficient to override what thousands over an extended period of time have deemed valuable. This process is unfair to those thousands who have given approval when it only takes a couple people and a mention to undo everything that the community at large, has deemed valuable. A question vote lock until a poll from the community at large has been completed to decide to keep or not, seems legitimate. – Kraang Prime Aug 4 '16 at 3:06
  • 5
    Votes are not an indication of quality. Quality is an indication of quality. High rep users have earned the responsibility of casting close votes. For real, though, what's usually happening is that the question was ages old, and got upvotes back then but now that it's been dredged up in Meta, we realized that it's no longer on topic. Rules change, what's on topic does too. The meta effect gives an old question a second go of it, for better or for worse. – Ares Aug 4 '16 at 3:08
  • Provided that if it shows votes to close, then it should also show votes to keep. Possible even add a close of poll date for the period of a month ? Just give the community at large a chance to decide before killing it, is all I am intending here. (I have not seen a question brought up in meta, get a series of upvotes -- so while the "for better" portion makes it sound fair, in reality, it isn't). – Kraang Prime Aug 4 '16 at 3:08
  • This "If someone was an OK guy before we did a press release about him, people shouldn't be allowed to think poorly of him following the press release." I disagree with the analogy. It is more like, "If 200,000 people like a person, that person should be put on death row because 10 people don't like them" Having a handful of people make a decision for something the community at large has accepted, is not fair to the community at large. – Kraang Prime Aug 4 '16 at 3:13
  • Regarding downvotes don't mean the article is bad : stackoverflow.com/help/why-vote I will quote "voting down a post signals the opposite: that the post contains wrong information, is poorly researched, or fails to communicate information" – Kraang Prime Aug 4 '16 at 3:18
  • 7
    200k random visitors may not include the 10 eagle eyed Meta veterans who are generally better qualified to judge content against scope. What is wrong with them expressing that? – Bart Aug 4 '16 at 6:24
  • @SamuelJackson I'm slightly conflicted, because I get what you are trying to say but, you have no way of knowing if all of those 200k people actually like the person being put on death row, OR if they simply remain silent because they either don't have a opinion on the subject (ie. don't care), or because they find that the 10 veterans that speak out seem to cover the general gist of what people feel and thereby feel that they don't have to say anything because the 10 veterans are all ready saying what needs to be said. – Epodax Aug 4 '16 at 7:04
  • the main problem here is that the closures happens by a select few rapidly without giving the rest of the community at large any real chance. for that chance to happen for the thousands of people to have their say they would all have to be online and focused on that article during the few minutes it takes for the closure and down-votes to occur. i am proposing a system where if something has been linked on meta that it has a chance to get feedback from a larger portion of the community before anything radical happens to the post. @Epodax – Kraang Prime Aug 4 '16 at 7:11
  • @Bart - i would disagree. meta browser doesn't mean veteran. usually a questions quality and solution quality are better gauged by those who seek and understand that information and the relevance. maturity of articles in good standing should play a role in how they are handled by linking and since this is a social problem, the suggested solution of expanding the vote system and locking the up/downs of the article until such a date that a more reasonable scope of the community has had a chance to decide one way or the other is pertinent to the health of quality articles. – Kraang Prime Aug 4 '16 at 7:17
  • @SamuelJackson But I still don't see the issue, even if a question (Question A) was closed right after a meta question was created and pointed to our Question A, there is nothing to prevent the question from being reopened by the other users who at a later / during the day find the meta question, and I also believe that goes for the down votes, if it's heavily down voted it would most likely also get up voted again. A down vote or close vote isn't permanent. (Do keep in mind that here we assume that the Question A is wrongly closed / down voted). – Epodax Aug 4 '16 at 7:36
  • 1
    @SamuelJackson Since I don't have enough rep to close / reopen things I can't say for sure, but I believe that those with the rep can both close and reopen while on the questions page itself, which means that the question can still be reopened by those users coming "late to the party". – Epodax Aug 4 '16 at 7:55
  • 1
    @SamuelJackson Well, how long do you intend for people to have? As I see it, it would generate a massive clog in the system? If the meta question is deleted / falls off then 200k will never see it any ways, and will therefor not have a' opinion on the question? – Epodax Aug 4 '16 at 8:08
  • 8
    So just because the community has voted positively, others lose the right to vote? How is that remotely fair? And if it really was all that positive, the meta effect (if it does exist in the form you imply) wouldn't make a dent anyway. And if it has been around for 2 years, the whole community has had enough time, hasn't it? – Bart Aug 4 '16 at 8:33
  • 2
    So it all boils down to "as soon as I mention something on Meta, avoid those bastards from downvoting it because they abuse their votes", right? I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. You just got more eyes on the content, and perhaps more critical ones. Deal with it. – Bart Aug 4 '16 at 14:59
  • 3
    I'm not afraid of anything. There are just a ton of assumptions in that last comment of yours that do not stroke with reality. But we probably won't ever agree on that, so I'm out. Good luck. – Bart Aug 4 '16 at 15:13

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/331588/a-potential-solution-for-the-meta-effect-on-questions?noredirect=1
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-39
155828
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:3EC6G6N4T5DCASWTWJVLXIE3OCKZI2GC
<urn:uuid:5fe995e3-3899-4122-9248-3f16013eff6b>
2019-09-15T18:50:20Z
151.101.1.69
text/html
sha1:DFNJIFYW25F7UG4XOVZRZVT7SFNG6B73
<urn:uuid:a9f131a5-88cd-44e6-b2a7-c238de5a5e8d>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/331588/a-potential-solution-for-the-meta-effect-on-questions?noredirect=1
response
<urn:uuid:e27f620a-e911-4b41-91eb-1b48ada6e86f>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-39
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-127.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/