Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on How to deal with reactor if the reactor is no more or he thinks the post is still bad?

Parent

How to deal with reactor if the reactor is no more or he thinks the post is still bad?

+2
−1

I was thinking of the reaction system for a long time. A question had came to my mind :

If an answer is poorly written (or outdated) and a person had reacted to that as Outdated. Later, when the author of that answer edit that post and remove all those outdated content and newly write new "things" than the reactor must retract his reaction. But what should we do if the reactor is no more or he is no more in the community? What if the reactor is right there but he don't want to retract that? And, if the reactor thinks that the post is not helpful but everyone on the community thinks that's helpful than he obviously won't retract. So can moderator retract that reaction? Like as, a beginner programmer can't understand what does seniors say cause they may think it is not understandable for him so it's unhelpful (I am assuming that the reactor's idea isn't good but he will react that post as unhelpful).

I know it would be better if I had separated the question but I don't have any idea, what mod can do with reaction since I haven't cloned the updated the new version of QPixel.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+1
−0

Maybe reactions on earlier versions to the post should be marked as such, with a way to see the version they referred to.

Also, maybe it is a good idea to have for each reaction also the opposite reaction, so that people can counter a bad reaction with a good reaction. If two people considered the post unhelpful and ten considered it helpful, then it is a good sign that the post is helpful. Or maybe it is helpful for some, but not others.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Revision numbers? Timestamps? (2 comments)
Revision numbers? Timestamps?
Monica Cellio‭ wrote over 2 years ago

This question came up in the earlier design discussions, but it looks like we never resolved it. We want to give some indication that reactions might be obsolete, but we don't want a trivial edit to cause this effect (fixing a typo doesn't make the answer not outdated, usually).

I like the idea of linking to the revision number in the history. The number alone doesn't convey much info (revision 7 of how many?). Should we show the timestamp of the most recent reaction of a type? This also covers the case where there were some reactions and then an edit, and then more people used the same reaction (indicating that the edit probably didn't address it).

celtschk‭ wrote over 2 years ago

If linked to the exact version, anything that allows to see whether two reactions were to the same version or different versions would work.

Another consideration would be to also allow to reaffirm a past reaction if an edit has been done, thus explicitly stating that the edit didn't address the issue (thus allowing to distinguish between reactions that simply weren't revisited and reactions that intentionally were kept).