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.
Post History
The easiest answer to HNQ is to not have such a feature at all. I thinks that HNQ are an ill-conceived feature of StackExchange. They are more of a distraction than good. A more permissive way o...
Answer
#5: Post edited
by
Nick Alexeev
·
2020-11-14T03:26:10Z (about 4 years ago)
The easiest answer to the HNQ question is to not have such a feature at all. I thinks that HNQ are an ill-conceived feature of StackExchange. They are more of a distraction than good.A more permissive way of dealing with HNQ is to let each user control if he wants to see HNQs.Yet more permissive approach is to give each user an ability to select which sites can provide content for the feed. (I'm interested in Engineering and Photography. I'm not interested in Politics.)- **edit:**
- If we are going to have a feature like that, we should choose a different moniker. Perhaps we could call it "notable questions" or "curated questions".
The word "hot" implies mass appeal. For a site with professional standards that's more of a distraction than good exposure. The masses usually don't [want to] uphold the professional standards. The professionals will find the site anyway.
- The easiest answer to HNQ is to not have such a feature at all. I thinks that HNQ are an ill-conceived feature of StackExchange. They are more of a distraction than good.
- A more permissive way of dealing with HNQ is to let each user control if he wants to see the HNQs.
- Yet more permissive approach is to give each user an ability to select which sites can provide content for his HNQ feed. (I'm interested in Engineering and Photography. I'm not interested in Politics.)
- **edit:**
- If we are going to have a feature like that, we should choose a different moniker. Perhaps we could call it "notable questions" or "curated questions".
- The word "hot" implies mass appeal. For a site with professional standards that's more of a distraction than good exposure. The masses usually don't [care to] uphold the professional standards. The professionals will find the site anyway.
#4: Post edited
by
Nick Alexeev
·
2020-10-21T23:37:05Z (about 4 years ago)
- The easiest answer to the HNQ question is to not have such a feature at all. I thinks that HNQ are an ill-conceived feature of StackExchange. They are more of a distraction than good.
- A more permissive way of dealing with HNQ is to let each user control if he wants to see HNQs.
- Yet more permissive approach is to give each user an ability to select which sites can provide content for the feed. (I'm interested in Engineering and Photography. I'm not interested in Politics.)
- **edit:**
If we are going to have a feature like that, we should choose a different moniker. The word "hot" implies mass appeal. For a site with professional standards that's more of a distraction than good exposure. The masses usually don't [want to] uphold the professional standards. The professionals will find the site anyway.Perhaps we could call it "notable questions" or "curated questions".
- The easiest answer to the HNQ question is to not have such a feature at all. I thinks that HNQ are an ill-conceived feature of StackExchange. They are more of a distraction than good.
- A more permissive way of dealing with HNQ is to let each user control if he wants to see HNQs.
- Yet more permissive approach is to give each user an ability to select which sites can provide content for the feed. (I'm interested in Engineering and Photography. I'm not interested in Politics.)
- **edit:**
- If we are going to have a feature like that, we should choose a different moniker. Perhaps we could call it "notable questions" or "curated questions".
- The word "hot" implies mass appeal. For a site with professional standards that's more of a distraction than good exposure. The masses usually don't [want to] uphold the professional standards. The professionals will find the site anyway.
#3: Post edited
by
Nick Alexeev
·
2020-10-21T23:36:36Z (about 4 years ago)
I thinks that HNQ are an ill-conceived feature of StackExchange. They are more of a distraction than good.The easy answer to the HNQ question is to not have such a feature at all.- A more permissive way of dealing with HNQ is to let each user control if he wants to see HNQs.
Yet more permissive approach is to give each user an ability to select which sites can provide content for the feed. (I'm interested in Engineering and Photography. I'm not interested in Politics.)
- The easiest answer to the HNQ question is to not have such a feature at all. I thinks that HNQ are an ill-conceived feature of StackExchange. They are more of a distraction than good.
- A more permissive way of dealing with HNQ is to let each user control if he wants to see HNQs.
- Yet more permissive approach is to give each user an ability to select which sites can provide content for the feed. (I'm interested in Engineering and Photography. I'm not interested in Politics.)
- **edit:**
- If we are going to have a feature like that, we should choose a different moniker. The word "hot" implies mass appeal. For a site with professional standards that's more of a distraction than good exposure. The masses usually don't [want to] uphold the professional standards. The professionals will find the site anyway.
- Perhaps we could call it "notable questions" or "curated questions".
#2: Post edited
by
Nick Alexeev
·
2020-10-21T01:49:21Z (about 4 years ago)
- I thinks that HNQ are an ill-conceived feature of StackExchange. They are more of a distraction than good.
The radical answer to the HNQ question is to not have such a feature at all.- A more permissive way of dealing with HNQ is to let each user control if he wants to see HNQs.
- Yet more permissive approach is to give each user an ability to select which sites can provide content for the feed. (I'm interested in Engineering and Photography. I'm not interested in Politics.)
- I thinks that HNQ are an ill-conceived feature of StackExchange. They are more of a distraction than good.
- The easy answer to the HNQ question is to not have such a feature at all.
- A more permissive way of dealing with HNQ is to let each user control if he wants to see HNQs.
- Yet more permissive approach is to give each user an ability to select which sites can provide content for the feed. (I'm interested in Engineering and Photography. I'm not interested in Politics.)
#1: Initial revision
by
Nick Alexeev
·
2020-10-21T00:45:13Z (about 4 years ago)
I thinks that HNQ are an ill-conceived feature of StackExchange. They are more of a distraction than good. The radical answer to the HNQ question is to not have such a feature at all. A more permissive way of dealing with HNQ is to let each user control if he wants to see HNQs. Yet more permissive approach is to give each user an ability to select which sites can provide content for the feed. (I'm interested in Engineering and Photography. I'm not interested in Politics.)