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

83%

+8 −0

Q&A Codidact marketing for community posts

We currently let users with the Curate ability promote posts across the Codidact network. Should we choose some subset of these for promotion? Well this seems like an extremely hard ability to...

posted 3y ago by Lundin‭ · edited 3y ago by Lundin‭

Answer

#3: Post edited by

Lundin‭ · 2021-04-26T08:30:27Z (almost 3 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

> We currently let users with the Curate ability promote posts across the Codidact network. Should we choose some subset of these for promotion?
Well this seems like an extremely hard ability to earn. Does anyone but moderators and staff actually have it? As an example from Software Development, Curate is described as:
> To earn this ability, you need to have at least a 90% positive reception rate for your posts, with a hard minimum of 16 positively-received posts. You also need at least a 99% helpful rate for flags you have raised, with a hard minimum of 196 helpful flags. (These numbers may vary from site to site.)
~~196 helpful flags! Meaning 198 in total, where 196 has to be helpful. Seriously!?~~
This community gets some 2-3 posts per day and then it's one of the more active. What are we even supposed to flag? And woe if you make a mistake...
To compare with SO, I have 85% helpful post flags after some 10 years of using the site. Been doing lots of custom flags. And 94% helpful comment flags - not even those reach 99%.
---
> Would it make sense for us to open a meta thread and let people nominate high-quality posts there?
That could work. Though why not just pick from whatever is recent and somewhat up-voted? Preferably with as varied topics as possible per community.
> Are there any guidelines we should put in place around the content we share, e.g. avoiding controversial questions?
If it fulfils the Code of Conduct (be nice; be respectful) & local community rules, that should be sufficient. I believe there was some drama over at Someplace Else when some supposedly controversial question was posted. But since we don't have the same Twitter-Driven Development as they do, I think we can be more far more lenient in freedom of speech.
> How should we enable community members (or anyone else) to object to a promotion or proposed promotion? We don’t want to create controversy; how do we avoid unintentionally doing so?
I think it should be integrated with the flagging system so that objections can be done without confronting anyone in public. I think the community-specific moderators can be trusted to deal with such flags at their own best judgment. Unless they are partial, either because they made the nomination in the first place, or in case they posted anything under the post getting flagged. Then the site should simply hand the flag to an impartial mod/staff instead.

> We currently let users with the Curate ability promote posts across the Codidact network. Should we choose some subset of these for promotion?
Well this seems like an extremely hard ability to earn. Does anyone but moderators and staff actually have it? As an example from Software Development, Curate is described as:
> To earn this ability, you need to have at least a 90% positive reception rate for your posts, with a hard minimum of 16 positively-received posts. You also need at least a 99% helpful rate for flags you have raised, with a hard minimum of 196 helpful flags. (These numbers may vary from site to site.)
196 helpful flags! Meaning 198 in total, where 196 have to be helpful. Seriously!?
This community gets some 2-3 posts per day and then it's one of the more active. What are we even supposed to flag? And woe if you make a mistake...
To compare with SO, I have 85% helpful post flags after some 10 years of using the site. Been doing lots of custom flags. And 94% helpful comment flags - not even those reach 99%.
---
> Would it make sense for us to open a meta thread and let people nominate high-quality posts there?
That could work. Though why not just pick from whatever is recent and somewhat up-voted? Preferably with as varied topics as possible per community.
> Are there any guidelines we should put in place around the content we share, e.g. avoiding controversial questions?
If it fulfils the Code of Conduct (be nice; be respectful) & local community rules, that should be sufficient. I believe there was some drama over at Someplace Else when some supposedly controversial question was posted. But since we don't have the same Twitter-Driven Development as they do, I think we can be more far more lenient in freedom of speech.
> How should we enable community members (or anyone else) to object to a promotion or proposed promotion? We don’t want to create controversy; how do we avoid unintentionally doing so?
I think it should be integrated with the flagging system so that objections can be done without confronting anyone in public. I think the community-specific moderators can be trusted to deal with such flags at their own best judgment. Unless they are partial, either because they made the nomination in the first place, or in case they posted anything under the post getting flagged. Then the site should simply hand the flag to an impartial mod/staff instead.

#2: Post edited by

Lundin‭ · 2021-04-26T08:29:58Z (almost 3 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

> We currently let users with the Curate ability promote posts across the Codidact network. Should we choose some subset of these for promotion?
Well this seems like an extremely hard ability to earn. Does anyone but moderators and staff actually have it? As an example from Software Development, Curate is described as:
> To earn this ability, you need to have at least a 90% positive reception rate for your posts, with a hard minimum of 16 positively-received posts. You also need at least a 99% helpful rate for flags you have raised, with a hard minimum of 196 helpful flags. (These numbers may vary from site to site.)
~~196 helpful flags! Out of which 194 have to be helpful. Seriously!?~~
This community gets some 2-3 posts per day and then it's one of the more active. What are we even supposed to flag? And woe if you make a mistake...
To compare with SO, I have 85% helpful post flags after some 10 years of using the site. Been doing lots of custom flags. And 94% helpful comment flags - not even those reach 99%.
---
> Would it make sense for us to open a meta thread and let people nominate high-quality posts there?
That could work. Though why not just pick from whatever is recent and somewhat up-voted? Preferably with as varied topics as possible per community.
> Are there any guidelines we should put in place around the content we share, e.g. avoiding controversial questions?
If it fulfils the Code of Conduct (be nice; be respectful) & local community rules, that should be sufficient. I believe there was some drama over at Someplace Else when some supposedly controversial question was posted. But since we don't have the same Twitter-Driven Development as they do, I think we can be more far more lenient in freedom of speech.
> How should we enable community members (or anyone else) to object to a promotion or proposed promotion? We don’t want to create controversy; how do we avoid unintentionally doing so?
I think it should be integrated with the flagging system so that objections can be done without confronting anyone in public. I think the community-specific moderators can be trusted to deal with such flags at their own best judgment. Unless they are partial, either because they made the nomination in the first place, or in case they posted anything under the post getting flagged. Then the site should simply hand the flag to an impartial mod/staff instead.

> We currently let users with the Curate ability promote posts across the Codidact network. Should we choose some subset of these for promotion?
Well this seems like an extremely hard ability to earn. Does anyone but moderators and staff actually have it? As an example from Software Development, Curate is described as:
> To earn this ability, you need to have at least a 90% positive reception rate for your posts, with a hard minimum of 16 positively-received posts. You also need at least a 99% helpful rate for flags you have raised, with a hard minimum of 196 helpful flags. (These numbers may vary from site to site.)
196 helpful flags! Meaning 198 in total, where 196 has to be helpful. Seriously!?
This community gets some 2-3 posts per day and then it's one of the more active. What are we even supposed to flag? And woe if you make a mistake...
To compare with SO, I have 85% helpful post flags after some 10 years of using the site. Been doing lots of custom flags. And 94% helpful comment flags - not even those reach 99%.
---
> Would it make sense for us to open a meta thread and let people nominate high-quality posts there?
That could work. Though why not just pick from whatever is recent and somewhat up-voted? Preferably with as varied topics as possible per community.
> Are there any guidelines we should put in place around the content we share, e.g. avoiding controversial questions?
If it fulfils the Code of Conduct (be nice; be respectful) & local community rules, that should be sufficient. I believe there was some drama over at Someplace Else when some supposedly controversial question was posted. But since we don't have the same Twitter-Driven Development as they do, I think we can be more far more lenient in freedom of speech.
> How should we enable community members (or anyone else) to object to a promotion or proposed promotion? We don’t want to create controversy; how do we avoid unintentionally doing so?
I think it should be integrated with the flagging system so that objections can be done without confronting anyone in public. I think the community-specific moderators can be trusted to deal with such flags at their own best judgment. Unless they are partial, either because they made the nomination in the first place, or in case they posted anything under the post getting flagged. Then the site should simply hand the flag to an impartial mod/staff instead.

#1: Initial revision by

Lundin‭ · 2021-04-20T16:10:00Z (almost 3 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

> We currently let users with the Curate ability promote posts across the Codidact network. Should we choose some subset of these for promotion?

Well this seems like an extremely hard ability to earn. Does anyone but moderators and staff actually have it? As an example from Software Development, Curate is described as:

> To earn this ability, you need to have at least a 90% positive reception rate for your posts, with a hard minimum of 16 positively-received posts. You also need at least a 99% helpful rate for flags you have raised, with a hard minimum of 196 helpful flags. (These numbers may vary from site to site.)

196 helpful flags! Out of which 194 have to be helpful. Seriously!? 

This community gets some 2-3 posts per day and then it's one of the more active. What are we even supposed to flag? And woe if you make a mistake...

To compare with SO, I have 85% helpful post flags after some 10 years of using the site. Been doing lots of custom flags. And 94% helpful comment flags - not even those reach 99%.

---

> Would it make sense for us to open a meta thread and let people nominate high-quality posts there?

That could work. Though why not just pick from whatever is recent and somewhat up-voted? Preferably with as varied topics as possible per community.

> Are there any guidelines we should put in place around the content we share, e.g. avoiding controversial questions?

If it fulfils the Code of Conduct (be nice; be respectful) & local community rules, that should be sufficient. I believe there was some drama over at Someplace Else when some supposedly controversial question was posted. But since we don't have the same Twitter-Driven Development as they do, I think we can be more far more lenient in freedom of speech. 

> How should we enable community members (or anyone else) to object to a promotion or proposed promotion? We don’t want to create controversy; how do we avoid unintentionally doing so?

I think it should be integrated with the flagging system so that objections can be done without confronting anyone in public. I think the community-specific moderators can be trusted to deal with such flags at their own best judgment. Unless they are partial, either because they made the nomination in the first place, or in case they posted anything under the post getting flagged. Then the site should simply hand the flag to an impartial mod/staff instead.

Communities

Post History