Location
  • San Luis Obispo,
  • California,
  • United States

Top Contributors

Enough with the proposed topics already

I like the idea, at least on paper. Members can propose topics. If enough people use then proposed topics they become regular topics. But it's gone too far. Every post now is 50% or more proposed topics. It's getting in the way. I have a couple of suggestions:

1. Limit questions to no more than 1 of the 5 allowed topics to be a proposed topic.
2. List the proposed topics at the END of the list rather than at the beginning.
3. Create a blacklist of topics. These would be suggested topics that have been rejected. Blacklisted topics cannot be used.
4. Have a time limit on how long a proposed topic can live. If it doesn't have enough popularity after that time, blacklist it.

Anyone else annoyed by the rampant proliferation of these things? Anyone else have ideas on how to improve it?
View Previous CommentsLoad All Comments (12)
Rank: Prodigy

Expert Comment

Vitor Montalvão2017-04-11 07:44 AMID: 1986985
When the voting is closing? I think who wanted to vote already did it so why still keeping the voting process opened?
0
Rank: Ace

Expert Comment

Predrag Jovic2017-04-11 10:09 PMID: 1987705
I often did not pay attention to list of topics (so I have):
*cisco switch       
*Switch
*switches
*switching

I like Russ's suggestion.
 
Additionally:
It will happen soon for someone to become Master in  *topic (if not already). I need less than 12k points for one topic that will most likely will not be accepted.
What will happen with points if proposed topic is not accepted (in the case that already present topic is not present in the list of topics - for example - for topics listed above Switches / Hubs)?
0

Expert Comment

Rob Jurd2017-04-11 11:33 PMID: 1987933
@Vitor, the voting is ongoing. A topic stays proposed until there is a clear majority for either yes, no or synonym. If yes, it becomes a topic
If no, it's rejected
If synonym, it's added as a synonym to the existing topic it was linked to in the voting
0

Expert Comment

Rob Jurd2017-04-11 11:37 PMID: 1987934
@Predeag, you do not earn points in proposed topics 😊 so that's not an issue.
If the proposed topic does eventually make it, you will earn the points.
0
Rank: Sage

Expert Comment

can't we alias these topics /tags somehow so that a fuzzy logic search will catch them all, basically make a canonical list of tags, and treat the proposed as alternates, then if some proposed tag is really the preferred method of tagging as language and attitudes change over time it won't cause fractured topics because it will be considered the same in terms of the search.
0

Expert Comment

Rob Jurd2017-04-12 12:09 AMID: 1987942
It's essentially doing that now. There are synonyms for any given topic. You can indicate whether the proposed topic should be a synonym of a topic in its own right. You can also vote to reject it.
Proposed tags\topics only become official through voting.
Are you suggesting something more automated? We've found it very subjective whether a topic should be a synonym of not of another topic or one on its own
0
https://www.experts-exchange.com/discussions/218742/Enough-with-the-proposed-topics-already.html
www.experts-exchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-51
78216
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:2A7HBAZOAPVWSNAU6BHQ22C5CBYSZER4
<urn:uuid:42c2f791-e5d2-4982-a0ea-a7b47a53be8f>
2019-12-15T20:22:04Z
104.20.168.10
text/html
sha1:OXL7YIBTDNBPOV26DH5URJG4QGAZI2FZ
<urn:uuid:7d8cf137-8a48-407f-a5ff-09b46f4e910f>
https://www.experts-exchange.com/discussions/218742/Enough-with-the-proposed-topics-already.html
response
<urn:uuid:db9d249f-5d1e-42e4-8160-7957f6c0c703>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-51
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for December 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-121.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (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/