-161

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
In case you were wondering, the irony of that was not lost on me.


It is the opinion of the moderation team that this change is overdue. If you have compelling arguments against it, please post an answer below. We want this to happen.

This proposal comes in the wake of the last few days/weeks, most recently culminating in quite a few posts, and a discussion around comments and their place here on meta.

I've noticed that there's quite a bit of confusion and disagreement with regards to how meta should be moderated, and in particular, how comments on meta should be moderated. And so thought that it might be best if I made this formal proposal on how I think we should move forward.


TL;DR - I propose that we moderators take a more hands-on approach with regards to meta moderation, which is a change from the established status-quo. Specifically, I propose that moderators take a more active role in outright removing derailing, snarky, and non-constructive comments. I also propose that moderators should encourage extended discussion to be moved to chat more.


Intro

Here are a few facts, as I see them (I might be wrong, call me out on it if you disagree)

  • Staff, and sometimes moderators, are reluctant to go on meta. Cited reasons are toxicity, users ganging up on "bearers of bad news", hostility.
  • Threads with 100+ comments on them are a relatively common occurrence on meta, especially with high traffic posts.
  • Comments not being a great tool for extended discussions have been deathly discussed and agreed upon.

Here are some of my observations, they aren't necessarily facts, just how I see things.

  • The people of meta are, for the most part, passionate about the site, and are genuinely interested in making the site better.
  • The people of meta want, for the most part, a constructive collaboration between the community and the company, but don't necessarily know how to make it happen, or even, they don't see it happening.

I can pinpoint two specific issues, that make discussions on meta get out of hand

  • Comments that aim at ranting or otherwise derailing the conversation. This includes but not limited to: Snarky comments about how the company won't fix the issue no matter what we say, comments focusing on other comments (and not the discussion itself), comments that attempt to branch the discussion to talk about a different issue.
  • Relevant discussion that is extended beyond what's reasonable. This one is a bit vaguer, but it's generally easy to see when comments should be moved to chat. We see chat-like behavior in comment threads all the time (comments within seconds of one another, replying to one another, etc.)

The current

The current policy of meta moderation is relatively hands-off. While overt nastiness and spam are handled by the moderators (and sometimes the community itself), discussions are generally left to their own devices, to run wild.

We rolled with this situation for quite a while now, and I don't think it was the wrong decision to make at the time it was made. However, I do think this isn't quite working out anymore.

My Proposal

I propose that moderators take a more active role in moderating meta. With rules and policies similar to what we apply to comments on the main site.

  • Off-topic comments are to be deleted.

    • If you have an issue with an implication from a comment (for example, a staff member or a moderator saying something that you think contradicts policy), please make a new meta question, and link to the original comment/post.

    • Comments that attempt to derail the conversation have no place here. No matter how well and nice they are put. Stay on topic, please.

    • Comments that primarily rant have no place here. We are aware of the frustration, this is a situation we found ourselves in and we want to extricate ourselves from. Being non-constructive does not help that goal.
  • Extended discussions are to be moved to chat.

    • Comments are there primarily for clarification of points on the primary post. If you agree/disagree with the post in question, vote on it, and optionally post an answer.
    • Chat-like behavior (rapid-fire back-and-forth comments, lots of comments in a short time) is a good indicator of when the discussion should be moved to chat.

The points above are nothing new, the proposal itself is that moderators take a more active role in enforcing these policies.

This means a few more concrete things:

  • Under this proposal, moderators will be more proactive in moderating comments, even when flags are not necessarily present. This is because meta receives much fewer flags than main, and it's a weaker signal for us to follow currently. Which leads to the next point. At the time of this writing, the meta flag queue is standing at 0. Imagine that :)
  • Under this proposal, we ask you to flag more often. Try to be objective and constructive. Do you think that a particular comment truly doesn't add anything to the discussion? Do you feel like the discussion is going too fast to reasonably follow with comments? Does this discussion generate too many comments? Please flag and let us know.

I think the current state of things are actively harmful to meta and its regular conduct. Staff members are afraid of coming here. Regular users are afraid of coming here. This situation is not OK.

Let's make meta a more professional place, with less noise and more signal. I think that we've been running hands-off like this up until now and it's time we make this change.

*forever is a very long time, in effect, even in the case this proposal does get implemented, you can always make a new meta post about it ;)

3
  • 28
    Could you separate your proposed solution out of the question and into an answer? I believe discussion is useful and I want to upvote it as such, but I don't believe that your solution is as useful and I don't want a vote to this post to be misunderstood as support for your proposal, especially the first bullet point.
    – Davy M
    Jul 31, 2019 at 1:25
  • 7
    This does not read as a proposal for a change that is up for debate. It reads as a declaration of intent. You have the power to enforce changes that you see fit. Please, don't phrase them like "Should the mod team tighten up moderation on Meta comments?" if you already state: "It is the opinion of the moderation team that this change is overdue. ... We want this to happen." If you want to, then just do it.
    – k0pernikus
    Jul 31, 2019 at 10:47
  • 3
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. Jul 31, 2019 at 15:12

35 Answers 35

1
2
0

Related: It took so long to remove this comment. Why? Because a moderator left this comment.

And to be honest: I was just trying to get clarification about the comment policy! (If you're not convinced, please read my meta question.)

In other words, I was trying to ask:

If this comment is permitted, then why are many other comments not permitted?

-10

My two cents is that meta will always have strong language. Then if you have to moderate, only close the comments which will defame a user. Otherwise allow it.

3
  • Nah, you've been around for just a few years here. Which is fine of course, but you haven't seen the negative progression. We can change. Optimism ftw
    – Cullub
    Jul 31, 2019 at 13:38
  • 5
    @Cullub I hate to keep picking on your comments, but that isn't a request for clarification and under the new rules should have been posted as a new meta question.
    – user4639281
    Jul 31, 2019 at 15:26
  • @Cullub but the rules have changed. They have very obviously and explicitly changed as detailed in the meta question and by multiple moderators in comments on multiple posts here. (as I have replied to you elsewhere).
    – user4639281
    Jul 31, 2019 at 15:44
-10

This is in response to this answer on this question, and the comment discussion ensuing on it. This is a good example of how a comment discussion could get started, but then moved to a separate answer or chat so that the individual post stays focused on the topic of that post.

The first couple how many? posts on that question would be fine, as part of a normal comment process on an answer. Not every new comment needs a new answer by the new suggested system (obviously, I think, but again, comment if you disagree).

Clarification: Not a typo! Yes, I like comments too ;). If you disagree and have a point of friction, comments can still work to bring that up with the post author. I can address the point in the post or ignore it and let it accumulate upvotes. The problem arises when that single comment starts to become 15 comments discussing each of those points. That's when a separate answer to this question could work -- see the quote block at the bottom of this post for why I think that's OK. Thanks @TinyGiant

Once it started to get long, by the standard the moderators will create, a user could flag a comment, or a moderator could notice, and move the discussion to chat! Instead of a discussion under the post, the moderator would leave a comment saying that There are conflicting views on **XXX topic**. The discussion on that has been moved to chat. Once a consensus is reached (if?), a second comment could optionally be posted saying *this* was [discussed], and the consensus was *XXX*. Join the discussion to add your opinion..

Alternately, or even after that occurred, someone could feel free to post an answer (like this!) explaining the background (see below), and their views on it. They'll then put a comment on the post explaining that There are multiple views on whether *XXX* is *YYY*. I've posted an [answer] discussing that. (I'll do that as soon as I post this.)

Discussion:

enter image description here

In general, you might not need to copy-paste the entire chat here; this is just one idea/example. Maybe it'd be better to summarize. That's something that could be worked out though; the main purpose here stands.

I did assert that chat might be better than comments for long comment threads, and I apologize for not clarifying why. My (mostly uneducated, and definitely less educated than the mods, who have had a long discussion on this) opinion is based mostly on this: If it's important enough that it needs individual attention, it could be posted as an answer instead of a comment. It then would be subject to voting like this post is! Servy asserts that an answer like this would be NAA. However, the meta-post is tagged [meta-tag: discussion] after all. The purpose is to get different opinions on the main question. Here's how it would flow:

Answer is posted -> Comment disagreeing with answer is posted on answer -> discussion on answer (because there's another side than the answer is showing) -> new answer must be on topic if old answer was on topic, since they're two sides of the same coin, more or less.

Alternatively, if it can't be done in an answer, my opinion is that chat is a better place for an extended discussion. Because: it wasn't important enough to merit a separate answer, with a full voting system. Therefore, it (the discussion) isn't important enough to merit the whole thing being underneath that question. Instead, a single comment could be left notifying others that the discussion is happening. This is the point I think we disagree on, but I could be wrong (it's happened before ;))

8
  • 2
    related: Moving comments to chat: is it just about length?
    – gnat
    Jul 31, 2019 at 14:10
  • 7
    I'm not gonna lie - this is just as hard to read as reading the comments (actually a little harder for me cause I had to adjust the color to be able to read it due to all the blockquotes) and I cannot just reference the original question which started the conversation. So yes, I do think this demonstrates why comments are the best option we have :)
    – LinkBerest
    Jul 31, 2019 at 14:27
  • @JG Yeah, I just read through it myself, and promptly replaced it with a screenshot (which, as it turns out, is much easier than copying the text anyway). I'm actually glad to hear that it's not just miscommunication though: that we actually disagree (unless this changed that for you). Thanks.
    – Cullub
    Jul 31, 2019 at 14:38
  • 1
    "comment if you disagree" you mean: post a new meta question if you disagree, right? (I'm trying really hard to make this a request for clarification).
    – user4639281
    Jul 31, 2019 at 14:40
  • 1
    Actually, no! Thanks for the request for clarification ;) I edited the post.
    – Cullub
    Jul 31, 2019 at 14:49
  • 1
    They have explicitly stated that comments are only for requests for clarification, and that anything else should be an answer or a new meta question, (as I have replied to you elsewhere) so you're literally telling people that they should break the new rules.
    – user4639281
    Jul 31, 2019 at 15:47
  • 4
    After fighting so hard to get newcomers to stop posting images of code, do we really want to come over to meta and suggest the best practice is to post images of comment threads? All the same readability/searchability/accessibility concerns apply.
    – manveti
    Jul 31, 2019 at 18:20
  • Mmm good point @Craig. My intent behind that was just to provide a record, but it seems neither an image nor a copy-paste is a great solution for that.
    – Cullub
    Jul 31, 2019 at 18:23
-18

Moving comments to Chat is not bad if a comment remains with the link to the chatroom.

Deleting the comments is very evil. Please do it only if the chatters won't listen.

0
-22
  1. We want Stack Overflow (the company) to listen to our concerns and implement our feedback.

  2. We want Stack Overflow (the company) to present new features to us so we can have an opportunity to offer feedback.

Members of the community have grown increasingly frustrated about the points above.

Stack Overflow (the company) has told us why they no longer want to publish features here for feedback.

How we respond dictates whether we get what we want (see #1 and #2 above), or whether we don't.

We can choose to say "nothing's wrong with how we're acting, it's the company's fault!", and we can even be right about that. But, being right isn't going to give us what we want.

We can choose to say "Hey, let's take their concerns at face value and work to fix our own behavior that they say caused this issue", which is what Madira's proposal aims to do.

Which one do you think has a better chance of giving us what we want?

8
  • The discussion was starting to get long winded, so let's continue this discussion in chat. Jul 31, 2019 at 14:10
  • 4
    "We want [the company] to present new features to us so we can have an opportunity to offer feedback... Which one do you think has a better chance of giving us what we want?" Considering that we have already been told explicitly that "if things aren't built exactly as they were talked about... people are disappointed and express frustration that a commitment that has been broken.", the chance of the company telling us in advance when there's still time to change it stays 0, regardless of what we do to comments and their perceived negativity.
    – Davy M
    Jul 31, 2019 at 16:41
  • The disappointment/frustration expressed happens somewhat in comments, but it also occurs plenty in questions and answers. Madira's proposal does nothing to address that (In fact it might make it worse because it advocates for shifting responses to answers and questions instead of comments, but I plan on addressing that in an answer), so both "doing nothing" and Madira's proposal have an equal chance of giving us point 2, which is none. It may help with the first point, but if you really believe it will help with the second point, could you please explain how? Because I really don't see it.
    – Davy M
    Jul 31, 2019 at 16:41
  • @DavyM Questions and answers can be edited to remove the non-constructive portions from them by anyone with enough reputation. Only moderators can edit comments, and when faced with a choice between 'edit' and 'delete' a comment we'll choose delete. You're right that there's multiple parts to it; the first is to get people to use answers to make arguments, not comments; and the second is to get people into the habit of editing out non-constructive things from arguments. In other words; improve this site in much the same way we improve the main site. Jul 31, 2019 at 17:29
  • I apologize, but I really don't see how that comment clarifies how Madira's proposal will help with our desire that "We want Stack Overflow (the company) to present new features to us so we can have an opportunity to offer feedback." I'm hoping that you'll clarify your answer to explain how the benefit you're claiming will actually be reaped by this change or remove it as a perceived benefit of Madira's proposal, not make a tangential comment about how other actions can be taken to remedy the issues not covered by this proposal.
    – Davy M
    Jul 31, 2019 at 17:47
  • This question is specifically about arguments for or against Madira's proposal. If we wanted a productive discussion about how to improve our image as a whole on Meta, and discuss the ways to do that, then Madira's proposal would be an answer to a discussion about that, but it's not. If your claim is that Madira's proposal is a first step in making things better, and "We want Stack Overflow (the company) to present new features to us so we can have an opportunity to offer feedback" is a long term goal of multiple parts, but not specifically of Madira's proposal, then it needs to be more clear.
    – Davy M
    Jul 31, 2019 at 17:52
  • 1
    @DavyM One thing at a time. We haven't yet even gotten people to recognize their non-constructive behavior put us here in the first place. Jul 31, 2019 at 17:54
  • 10
    I'm asking for exactly one thing. You say that Madira's proposal aims to fix our behavior that caused the issue that's keeping us from getting those two things. I agree that Madira's proposal aims to fix the first one (even if I don't agree with how it's implemented), but I don't get how it aims to fix the second one in the slightest. I'm requesting that you clarify your answer to say why that is, or remove the line you're drawing between Madira's proposal and the second issue. Requesting clarification is what comments are for. Your tangential responses about non-constructive behavior is not.
    – Davy M
    Jul 31, 2019 at 18:04
1
2

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/387883/should-the-mod-team-tighten-up-moderation-on-meta-comments?page=2&tab=scoredesc
meta.stackoverflow.com
CC-MAIN-2024-18
197396
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:AX4FOHGMNUJPZDKXOVRXVVMS4AZK32MK
<urn:uuid:eedc7d00-c2ec-4e29-b828-14cd43153468>
2024-04-16T08:56:36Z
104.18.32.7
text/html
sha1:7SBF6BPK3NOGKJQLSB446WCQCXY5THTY
<urn:uuid:ee93b80e-28a1-4ac9-a6b7-8f8ae76a4ced>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/387883/should-the-mod-team-tighten-up-moderation-on-meta-comments?page=2&tab=scoredesc
response
<urn:uuid:02362631-3d8f-45ad-8471-13ce54091520>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-18
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for April 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-23
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (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/