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 Indicate stale reactions based on user activity

Post

Indicate stale reactions based on user activity

+2
−2

Reactions are currently used on CD to:

  • Confirm an answer worked (similar to accepting an answer on SO)
  • Show that an answer is dangerous
  • Indicate interest in participating in a proposed CD site

Some of these have enduring meaning. For example, if rm -rf * was dangerous 50 years ago, it is still dangerous now. Others go stale. For example, if I indicate that I would be a casual user of a proposal, and then forget CD exists for the next 3 years, that reaction is not as meaningful as a fresh one. Another example: A Python 2 answer may have been accepted in 2010, with the asking account now inactive, and basically it will never get corrected even though Python 2 is now obsolete - this became a significant occasional problem on SO after some years.

My solution:

  • Define a time horizon t_max for each reaction. This indicates the CD devs' best guess for how long that reaction is relevant for. t_max can be infinity.
  • When displaying reactions, check t_age: how long it's been since the user's last login.
  • If the t_age > t_max, display the reaction as "stale" or "old" and grey it out in the UI (halve the saturation?). Each stale reaction should also have mouse over text like "Reactions made by accounts which have not been active in over 30 days".

This is a live calculation, in that stale reactions can become fresh again when the user logs in after a long hiatus.

This system can be gamed by writing a script that logs in every day, to artificially keep your own reactions fresh indefinitely. I don't think anybody will bother for a long time.

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?

1 comment thread

I'm pretty sure I've forgotten more of my reactions than I've ever placed, even though I'm more or le... (3 comments)
I'm pretty sure I've forgotten more of my reactions than I've ever placed, even though I'm more or le...
Moshi‭ wrote about 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure I've forgotten more of my reactions than I've ever placed, even though I'm more or less active. My old reactions wouldn't be marked as stale under this system. This probably won't be an uncommon scenario for other people either, so I'm not sure whether this is really helpful.

I'd rather the staleness be related to when the reaction itself was cast instead of use activity, since that seems more accurate to me. Also, it should probably be triggered on the post being edited, since 1. Recomputing every reaction regularly is not exactly efficient and 2. It feels weird for a reaction to be stale even though nothing has changed since the reaction was cast.

matthewsnyder‭ wrote about 1 year ago · edited about 1 year ago

Yes, but you're around. If you said you'd use proposal X, and forgot about it 3 years ago, but now proposal X gets created, there's a good chance you'd see it and use it as you initially said. This is different from someone who has stopped using the site entirely, as many of their reactions become much less interesting.

Also, people could @mention you in comments to that post (eg. "hey Moshi you said this is dangerous but how come?") and there's a good chance you'd respond. (Dunno if just reacting is enough to become summonable, but this alone is enough reason that it should be).

I disagree on your 1. You could have a daily batch job, even weekly, and it's just an O(n) operation. Faster if you use indices on the DB.

Moshi‭ wrote about 1 year ago

Fair enough on the 1, I was just throwing it out there as a consideration.