13
\$\begingroup\$

As it has been announced on the main meta, diamond moderators now have the ability to remove questions from the Hot Network Questions List.

Since the policy on what to remove seems to be on a per-site basis, the same post also recommends the creation of a meta discussion with guidelines for both moderators and general users on when a question should be removed.

With this intent in mind, what criteria should be used for removing a question from the Hot Network Questions? When, if at all, should users be flagging questions for moderator attention for this removal?

Previous related topics include our discussions on whether to opt out from HNQ and our goals for HNQ.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ This seems like something we are almost certainly going to have to develop over time to see what works. Trying to develop something solid to start off with trying though is not a bad idea I think. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Mar 12 at 13:32
5
\$\begingroup\$

When HNQ Harms the Interests of the Asker

HNQ can give the asker extra visibility, but it can also result in answers that are missing some of the expectations specific to this sub-stack. It is a difficult question when the benefits exceed the drawbacks and vice versa. It's certainly not a welcoming experience when a person's visibility is denied due to a few bad apples. Still, being denied HNQ visibility is generally less bad than being denied all future answer due to question closure.

Thus, I see two cases when HNQ should be disabled:

  • When a question is nearing the closing threshold (or passed it) through no fault of the asker, but rather due to HNQ-derived answers. In this case, it's disconnecting the question from the hot network and keeping it open or reopening it is a better alternative.
  • When the asker believes that the HNQ status is a net negative influence on the answers.
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I like your second point, the first point is kinda soft around the edges due to how one makes the subjective judgment of "through no fault of the asker." In principle, I like what you propose. \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Mar 14 at 18:54
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast It's a reference to 'your question is OK, but we will close it anyway because of the answers it receives' situations. It seemed to be an explicit type of closing I witnessed not that long ago. \$\endgroup\$ – vicky_molokh Mar 14 at 22:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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