13
\$\begingroup\$

We have community check-ins on Meta that represent a snapshot of the time they describe. These snapshots are useful when one contextualises what the metacommunity perceives as pressing incidents, remarkable developments, and concurrent issues of that period.

There is nothing that stops users from voting after we close the most recent check-in when we open a new one - this distorts the votes and makes contextualising unnecessary difficult.

But we have a tool that preserves these snapshot and freezes them in time: Should we lock questions with once we open a new one?

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm not sure how to fix it, but your 'community-check-in' tag takes me to a non-existent tag on the main site, not the meta-tag. \$\endgroup\$ – Pyrotechnical Apr 12 at 20:22
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ @Pyrotechnical: It's just a matter of changing [tag:name-of-tag] to [meta-tag:name-of-tag]. I've fixed it now :) \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Apr 12 at 22:20
6
\$\begingroup\$

There’s another tool that you can use to determine what voting happened when: the timeline. (It’s that circular button under the downvote button.) For example, you can see that the answer “It feels like comments have gotten more argumentative” from 2018 only got 1 (up)vote since 2018. (All the other checkin answers I checked show the same pattern: very little, if any, voting after the year ended.)

This allows users to still have access to tools like editing and commenting which would otherwise be inaccessible with a lock.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ What is the benefit of users having access to editing and commenting in this context? \$\endgroup\$ – Akixkisu Apr 14 at 0:13
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Akixkisu We may spot errors and someone may want to genuinely just fix some part of their own past post. We can verify the past state of the post already (both votes and revisions) so people being able to revise a post isn't inherently disruptive. Meanwhile, there's nothing wrong with someone wanting to engage on someone's past feedback, like ask them if they still think it's happening for example. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Apr 14 at 9:47
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener When I go to a stack where I don't have the privileges that I have here, the activity history looks like this: "daily summary N/A Score: 1," which does not let unprivileged users determine what voting happened (just that some votes occurred). \$\endgroup\$ – Akixkisu Apr 14 at 11:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I also think that there are different avenues to engage with past feedback, for example, by either directly referring to it when appropriate in a post via a link or addressing the community member in question in one of the chats. While editing is not inherently disruptive, it can be, especially when it is substantial. Minor editing options seem to me as less desirable than a clear and foremost accessible snapshot. \$\endgroup\$ – Akixkisu Apr 14 at 14:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .