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 »
Meta

Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!

Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.

Comments on Etiquette for posting comments

Parent

Etiquette for posting comments

+10
−0

This question featured a quite heated discussion in the comments which led to some of them being removed. This action was discussed here and I have realized that our community lacks a guide about posting comments.

I would like for us to build together a list of topics we can include and avoid respectively, in the comments. These lists should stem from our Code of Conduct.

Can include

  • requesting clarifications for the author. Examples: "what was the output of line X?", "can you include the stack trace?", "can you provide a reference for the second paragraph?"
  • constructive criticism. Example: "why is foo() called twice?"
  • +1 or thank you notes, if they also provide a little bit of information. Example: +1. This also worked with version X of the framework Y.

Should be avoided

  • +1 or -1 with no explanation
  • snarky comments. Example: "Codidact is not your personal assistant"
  • references to overall author activity in the community. If you feel a user's activity is an issue, please use flagging instead of comments.
  • providing full answers in the comments (they should be added as answers)
  • secondary discussions or debates on controversial points (please ask a question on meta).

SO loosely used as a reference

Please provide your suggestions about what is OK and not OK to include in the comments.

Once we have reached a fairly stable answer for this, I will include it in the help topics and use it as a reference for moderation.

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

1 comment thread

General comments (2 comments)
Post
+9
−1

Regarding "snark" - it is very hard and subjective to define. Our overall code of conduct says "be nice", but where do you draw the line. On SO, general gruff attitude tends to be treated very differently from moderator to moderator. That's obviously far from ideal.

We would have to be smarter about this than SO was. During the so-called "welcome wagon" they tried to make a push against such comments, but that's just addressing part of the problem. The first person who was rude is usually the one posting a raw copy/paste of their homework assignment and expecting unpaid volunteers to do it for them. That's incredibly rude.

If we'd then decide to always take the side of the rude homework dumper, like SO did by only remove the rude responses to an even ruder question, people get upset. The wrong people too, because the homework dumpers are rarely ever interested in becoming long-term contributors and community members.

So if we want a zero tolerance against "snark", we must have a similar zero tolerance against homework dumps. Because they will come here sooner or later. It's not enough to instantly remove the homework dump question, it should also be accompanied by 1 week ban from the site, as a suitable first warning against such rude behavior.

Similarly, we must not make the same mistake as SO taking some poorly-considered, naively idealistic stance such as "there are no stupid questions". 10 years of SO experience rather shows that "there are some questions that aren't stupid". The majority of the questions posted there are very bad and should just get deleted.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (5 comments)
General comments
Alexei‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

Yes, I agree that snark is very hard to define. Also, agree that SO policy of being way too welcoming is not beneficial for the advanced users (e.g. in the last two years, I could not get any serious question being answered unless I placed a bounty).

Alexei‭ wrote almost 3 years ago · edited almost 3 years ago

However, I think that we could minimize conflict by replacing some comments with downvoting (e.g. for no research or effort) or flagging (e.g. for seriously wrong content such as homework dumps). I do not see how endless debates in comments help with removing bad content.

meriton‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

@Alexei: Feedback can help people write better content in the future.

Quasímodo‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

Also, the fact that some members actually answer do-my-work-for-free questions (usually, I guess, to earn points) encourages more of them. Perhaps we should have earned points awarded by answering a question regarded as task dump by the community taken back.

Monica Cellio‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

My own experience in online communities is that the snarkier I'm feeling, the more careful I need to be to review what I'm writing to ask myself "how will this be received by someone who's not in my head?". Usually the same goal can be accomplished more effectively with other words; the snark can make the actual message harder to see and receive.