0

Householder Andrei, those who feel in charge or wishing to assist, those who wish not to burden for no long term benefits,

"You are posting too many questions. Please slow down.", was said by Moderator Andrei.

Which should be no problem to follow, according his wishes.

Nevertheless, since such may sometimes trouble some, or it might trouble those holding something dear or wish to have some control over it, when someone ask much, it might be good to have clear rules, if wished to limit others.

Just a suggestion, nothing claimed.

From a later similar event ("repeat offending" of power misuse without community consensus (rules)?):

  • You are posting too many questions too fast, please show down. No more than three questions from same user on the first page, please. – Andrei Volkov♦ 1 hour ago
  • meta on meta-page ("please") buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2342/… (meta=not direct related to certain topic) but a good sample of insecure bet. – Samana Johann 1 hour ago
  • You commented there, "Strict and simple rules give no place for arguments" -- saying, "No more than three questions from same user on the first page" fits that well: strict and simple. – ChrisW♦ 38 mins ago
  • Why not, if such would be a valid community transaction with approve of the owner (given that BSE lack on daily question and sticks in Beta). Meta on board, on board on meta... If one stays near a community then, is a matter of how much wisdom they have or act on pointless bias against liberation. – Samana Johann 7 mins ago
  • One has to understand clearly of what is interest in a Q&A undertaking and "nation socialism/communism", community/identification defense/increase. To learn or to socialize with lowest equal... if after long term happiness, on seek for right refuge. – Samana Johann 21 mins ago
  • I didn't understand any of this question, by the way -- what is "relation" or "to gain relation", what is the difference between "refuge" and "right refuge". What's "most worse" meant to mean, canonically I guess that's "killing your parents" or "killing an arahant" but I hope that's very far from being a realistic/practical problem that "ordinary people" face? I guess you you want people to say something, but I don't know what, about relating with the sangha. – ChrisW♦ 13 mins ago
  • Wrong view is the 6 (pernicious false beliefs (niyata micca ditthi). of most worse, good householder. But why not making a new question. Or is "only when I could answer, a question is valid" possible the subjective measure? "We" are great on topic here, actually. So how act in a good bet? Right view, and now enough food to be able to answer with metta. :-) meta => meta, topic => topic. Deviding thoughts. – Samana Johann 3 mins ago
  • People often ask questions which I couldn't answer -- it worries me if I can't even understand the question, maybe that means other people can't understand it either. And if you then appear to disparage the community and all its members, because you didn't get a "good answer" -- e.g. the first paragraph here -- then I suppose there's some problem with language or expectations or something. – ChrisW♦ just now

Further here, since all meta, even if top sample of what the question is about:

  • All just speculations and founded on personal, even equal bias. Cherry-picking to get destroyed what is preoccupied as not-mine, enemy on mine. Right? Therfore simple rules, if such is not actually a "shoot into ones own knee" given BSEs situation.

From Area51:

3.3 questions per day

Needs Work – 10 questions per day on average is a healthy beta, 5 questions or fewer per day needs some work. A healthy site generates lots of good content to make sure users keep coming back.

It's total pointless to bet on those resting in a state, but any undertaking grows health by change of "stammgaeste", sticking firm to certain food, here Dhamma.

Another point, thought it should be clear why... but maybe lost in own interests:

...A great site benefits people outside the community. Eventually, 90% of a site's traffic should come from search engines.

(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment but as means to escape this wheel)

  • The question might be irrelevant, since the first and later reasoning seems to be just tools to use "rules" for aversive reactions on cases, btw as you wish to progress here on the OP it self. – Samana Johann Jul 15 at 12:08
0

it might be good to have clear rules, if wished to limit others

There is no clear rule about how many questions (or questions-per-week) are welcome.

The closest there is to a rule like that (that I know of) is is implied by one of the pre-prepared moderator template messages, which is titled "consistently low quality questions over time", and which begins,

We've noticed that you've asked many questions, a large number of which were not well received by other members of our community.

Specifically, many of your questions were downvoted and closed because they seemed to be hastily written, or of the type that we'd prefer users refrain from asking. This is a troubling pattern; we'd like to make sure that you've read the help that we have available for asking questions.

So I guess that "too many" might imply "too many low-quality", where "low-quality" is a pretty subjective and not clearly defined, but might sometimes be inferred e.g. from users' votes.

The question which Andrei closed in this case, with that comment, was "Advocating hateful views are banned!", is intending such possible without hateful (wrong) view?

At the risk of "putting words into your mouth", perhaps you'd say that people shouldn't have an "aversive reaction" to what's posted -- and if that is what you'd want to argue, there's plenty of support for that view in the suttas.

Nevertheless only a limited form of conversation is supported on the site -- not even "conversation" really, only question-and-answer. So a question which requires a discussion, to adequately see it from all sides, is difficult to answer.

I think part of Andrei's theory-of-moderation is expressed in this comment:

The fact that question can be answered well, does not mean it will be answered well. A good question has an incline, so its answers naturally turn out good. A bad question is inclined toward flamewars, and takes extra effort and wisdom to answer well.

I think this question was one of those, i.e. "takes extra effort to answer well".

And, speaking now as a user not as a moderator: although I am willing to attempt a question like that occasionally, if I feel I have to, or if I think it might benefit the OP, I'd prefer it were really infrequent.

  • 1
    "takes extra effort and wisdom", thats what increases quality at the same time, given that 70% of answers are total void of both, plus even knowledge. But, like ever, what about simply, not involved, on the OP? Strict and simple rules give no place for arguments. For example: 5 a day. Or no new when the last 3 got no answers. – Samana Johann Jul 15 at 14:16
  • "10 questions per day on average is a healthy beta, 5 questions or fewer per day needs some work. A healthy site generates lots of good content to make sure users keep coming back." beta advices... – Samana Johann Jul 20 at 12:42
  • @SamanaJohann Speaking of your posts, rather than the general rules, it's not the quantity of questions that bothers me most but my inability to decipher your language. I often struggle to see the intent of your questions and perhaps this is the problem for the mods, as the ambiguity leads to poor answers. . – PeterJ Jul 25 at 11:31
  • @PeterJ I don't think it's that the grammar is usually too bad, anyone could edit to fix that. I think a principal problem is that the OP might have a specific "correct answer" already in mind -- that the questions seem to designed to "lead" users towards writing that correct answer -- a bit like, forgive me, a cross-word puzzle where the question is intended to point towards but also to conceal "the" answer. – ChrisW Jul 25 at 11:44
  • Also here, it's meant to stay simple on the OP, in and of itself. That's often not easy and great training. Requires satipatthana to get not lost. – Samana Johann Jul 25 at 11:47
  • Householder @PeterJ . May he not think that his critic has been ignored. Also always welcome to make such, and encouraged if not akusala and in that way possible bringing disadvantages for one. Meta area should be fine for such as well. – Samana Johann Jul 25 at 11:53
  • Requires satipatthana to get not lost... simple rules, if thinking such as many question are not good, help in cases where there is no satipatthana. Thats why precepts are trained. Protectives. – Samana Johann Jul 25 at 11:55
  • @SamanaJohann Isn't it better if I don't "lose" much time verbalising online. If a beginner posts a beginner-level question I can try to begin to answer it, perhaps that also leaves the more-expert users free to answer the more-expert questions. I don't think I should be trying to write dhamma-talks or anything like that, write "content" for a general audience. I've also learned something myself sometimes, from researching an answer for someone, but I think there's a limit to how much of that too, "Googleyana", I can afford to spend time with -- carry poison in the hand but not for too long! – ChrisW Jul 25 at 12:26
  • 1
    There is no, no better access to knowledge and understanding, then by doing it un-intended by serving others, by giving. Yet if giving outside the 5 right occations it will nevertheless hurt, but on the way doing so, one has already learned to know why. Therefore my person always encourages not to give outside the 5 seasonal gifts since such increases bounds upwardly or where one is, Nyom @ChrisW. And not at all is he a beginner, having practiced all the way. The servant is always the "real" king (Brahma) yet bound to a folk. – Samana Johann Jul 25 at 12:32

You must log in to answer this question.

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