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 Should we modify the default (front) page for anonymous visitors?

Parent

Should we modify the default (front) page for anonymous visitors?

+6
−1

A complaint we've heard a lot is that when a community's front page has many questions that are not well-received, it deters visitors. (It also deters some people who are already here, I know.) This is not a good look:

post list: 0/0, 0/-2, 2/-5, 0/-2, 0/-3, 0/-6, 1/-1, 0/-3

I'm trying not to embarrass any individuals (though you can go to the obvious community and look). These posts are from several different people, not one.

Should we filter the question list for people who are not logged in? If so, should we also filter it for new users (to be defined), so they don't get a shock right after signup?

I don't think we can (with good performance) do something like "no more than one post meeting these criteria"; I think if we're going to filter things out of the logged-out view, we need to be able to evaluate each post on its own.

(I'll make my proposal an answer, so it will be on equal footing with others' proposals.)

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

2 comment threads

Sounds like treating the symptoms instead of the causes (2 comments)
Remove closed posts from view? (2 comments)
Post
+2
−1

How about having another tab (next to "Activity", "Age", "Score", "Random") in the category listing called "Positive", that would be the new default? When listing by that tab, it would show only positively scored posts.

Users could have a new setting, "Default category sort", where they can choose from "Activity", "Age", "Positive" and maybe the others though I don't really see why one would want to have the others by default. This also solves the newly-registered-user shock problem by leaving it to them to choose to see the more poorly rated posts.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

2 comment threads

Score is always positive and this would be a filter, not a sort option (4 comments)
Oh good, that's even simpler. (2 comments)
Score is always positive and this would be a filter, not a sort option
Trilarion‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

Small nitpicking. I think the calculated score is always positive (between 0 and 1). You probably want to have a certain threshold there instead (let's say score > 0.4 for example). Positive might then not be the right word either, maybe more like "Useful", which would be the right word. Also it would be a filter, not a sort option. Sort options affect the order. Filters suppress items from being displayed. So instead of calling it a sort order, have a default filter on the score instead. We would need to display filters first.

Moshi‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

To be fair, we already have the Native filter that is grouped with the sorting tabs.

Trilarion‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

Okay, probably we should separate filters and sort orders, if only to be able to combine them independently. Maybe there is already a feature request about it somewhere and the programmers simply didn't come around to it yet... Will search for it.

Monica Cellio‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

Filters as a separate thing are part of that feature request I want to write but haven't yet. (The main part is "user-defined", but that pretty much forces separate placement.)