Timeline for Staging Ground Reviewer Motivation
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 30 at 12:15 | comment | added | VLAZ | @A-Tech yes, it does loop there. And this is the problem with the approach - it can't scale to be useful, because it requires far more time and effort. As I already said - I'm not reviewing there because I feel it's a waste of my time. Time I can invest elsewhere. Would SE take steps to reduce time I spend on other activities, I might dip into SG more. | |
| Aug 30 at 12:12 | comment | added | A-Tech | @VLAZ Wait doesn't that loop as around back to-> every question by new users must go though SG -> We need more reviewers/curators for that->more curators are not the answer for SOs issues? Or am I severely missing the point? | |
| Aug 30 at 11:59 | comment | added | VLAZ | @A-Tech "Which is is what SG addresses in part?" at the moment, it's an insignificant part. We still have to review every question because 1. not all go through SG 2. even the ones which do, may be graduated without changes that they need. So, right now SG is a bit like a gate in a middle of a field with no walls around it - it is not sufficient to really maintain the perimeter | |
| Aug 30 at 10:31 | comment | added | A-Tech | Ive been on this site only a short time (active at least) but as far as I can tell the SG is a wish from long time curators? Or do you and curators wish for something else entirely in terms of implementing SF? From what I have observed the general problems/complains on curating are: 1 to few curators, 2 need better tools, 3 bad posts net to be caught sooner. Which is is what SG addresses in part? But do correct me if I am wrong. | |
| Aug 30 at 9:57 | comment | added | Ian Kemp | @A-Tech At the end of the day, then, SE Inc.'s repeated attempts to target new curators are ultimately doomed to failure and always will be because data doesn't lie - yet the company persists in making new attempts. They also persist in ignoring the data around established curator retention, and why that should be a massive (and arguably larger) focus than new curators. And they do this simply because they are unwilling to tackle the issues that established curators have long complained about. | |
| Aug 30 at 9:51 | comment | added | Ian Kemp | @A-Tech So what we have is SE Inc. continually rolling out incentives to encourage the majority to curate, which as we have already seen doesn't happen; and continually ignoring the established curators, who get fed up and leave. Thus instead of the curation gap (ratio between number of people who actually curate content, and amount of content to curate) growing smaller over time, it gets ever-larger. Which means that the ever-fewer curators remaining have to shoulder ever-more curation effort, which burns them out quicker, which leads to fewer curators who need to do more curation, ... | |
| Aug 30 at 9:47 | comment | added | Ian Kemp | @A-Tech The problem with ignoring the established curators is that every time one of them stops curating because their wants and needs are being ignored, you lose a disproportionately large amount of curation activity that would require many new curators to cover. So in order for curation activities to continue at the same pace or (ideally) increase, you have to have a model that gets lets of new curators into the system quickly - but there is no site in the world that has ever been able to make that work without literal financial incentives. | |
| Aug 30 at 9:43 | comment | added | Ian Kemp | @A-Tech That does not mean there is no value in incentivising curation in order to encourage new curators - far from it - but what the statistics show (and they do not lie) is that historically, very few new curators go on to become established (i.e. part of the minority that does the majority of curation)., This is because the things that drive established curators to curate (e.g. a sense of community) are completely different to those that drive new curators to dip their toes in the water - and Stack Exchange Inc. has continually ignored this discrepancy. | |
| Aug 30 at 9:37 | comment | added | Ian Kemp | @A-Tech The problem with Staging Ground, and indeed all attempts so far to foster curation, is that they assume that getting more people to curate is the answer. Except that doesn't work, because as Wikipedia's stats show (and this is mirrored on Stack Overflow), a vast minority of curators perform the vast majority of curation. Thus, any honest effort at increasing curation should be focused on retaining and incentivising the minority who do curate, not the minority who don't. | |
| Aug 30 at 8:40 | comment | added | A-Tech | Isn't SG increasing the curation activities as it widen the potential user base of curators? | |
| Aug 28 at 16:02 | history | edited | Ian Kemp | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 66 characters in body
|
| Aug 28 at 10:44 | history | answered | Ian Kemp | CC BY-SA 4.0 |