0

We all love Politics Stack Exchange, but there is a whole world of people out there who need answers to their questions and don't even know that this site exists. When they arrive from Google, what will their first impression be? Let's try to look at this site through the eyes of someone who's never seen it before, and see how we stack up against the rest of the 'Net.

The Site Self-Evaluation review queue is open and populated with 10 questions that were asked and answered in the last quarter. Run a few Google searches to see how easy they are to find and compare the answers we have with the information available on other sites.

Rating the questions is only a part of the puzzle, though. Do you see a pattern of questions that should have been closed but are not? Questions or answers that could use an edit? Anything that's going really well? Post an answer below to share your thoughts and discuss these questions and the site's health with your fellow users!

0

Final Results

  • The fact that my answer to #4 - which has more references than you can shake a stick at but goes against liberal dogma - got a "needs improvement:3" tells me all I need to know about whether people even remotely bother evaluating posts for quality and not political agreement. The only 2 other equally hated posts both had answers with opinions not backed up by references (one of which was to a very poor-answerability question). – user4012 Jun 6 '13 at 20:35
  • Also, I wonder how 3 people decided that my answer for the last one - which took several painstaking hours to compile from disparate sources - is "OK but can be found elsewhere on Internet" - which is what my understanding of "Satisfactory" means...). – user4012 Jun 6 '13 at 20:39
  • 1
    @DVK Why are you assuming the scores are based on your answers, and your answers alone? The question and couple of the other answers in #4 have issues, your answer does not. Also, "satisfactory" doesn't necessarily mean "can be found elsewhere on Internet", it could also mean "ok, but... boring". – yannis Jun 8 '13 at 17:00
  • @YannisRizos - To me I judge based on is it an expert quality answer. I may not like the answer but if it is well written and expert quality I Still give it credit. Having references helps but does not automatically make it well written – SoylentGray Jun 11 '13 at 18:30
  • @YannisRizos - unless I'm gravely mistaken, the official grounds for site evaluation was very explicitly "whether information contained in the answers is better or worse than one contained on the Internet", not "is the question perfect" or "is one of the answers worse than others". IOW, a question with one excellent and one crappy answer should be judged by the former only. If I'm wrong, I would appreciate a link explaining the evaluation process in clearer way, thx. – user4012 Jun 13 '13 at 2:20
  • @YannisRizos - BTW, I also don't see any issues with that question, you're welcome to comment on it if you see some and I can try to edit it into shape if I buy into your arguments, as it's an interesting question :) – user4012 Jun 13 '13 at 2:21
  • @YannisRizos - if that quote was a SE question, I'd VTC it as "not constructive". It doesn't explain how to judge "stacking up" at all. I'm going by details I vaguely remember from podcasts in the last couple of months that mentioned evaluations, which is why i'm not fully certain I got the intended rules correctly. – user4012 Jun 13 '13 at 3:46
  • There's nothing to explain @DVK, each one of us is free to evaluate the questions and answers based on their own criteria. You may only care for the top voted answer, I tend to read every upvoted answer. And I consider a thread that has upvoted opinion heavy and unreferenced answers as in need of improvement. – yannis Jun 13 '13 at 3:47
  • @YannisRizos - meta.politics.stackexchange.com/questions/1347/… – user4012 Jun 13 '13 at 4:03
  • @YannisRizos - "upvoted opinion heavy and unreferenced answers as in need of improvement" - fair enough, I agree with that one. I actually included that caveat in my meta question, in a more precise format. – user4012 Jun 13 '13 at 4:04
  • I'll ask someone from SE to chime in, but I highly suspect the answer will be along the lines of "use your judgement". If you think about it, if they had concrete guidelines, they'd put them in self eval Meta question, wouldn't they? – yannis Jun 13 '13 at 4:06
  • @DVK I went back and read question #4, and although your post would be a very good answer to an Are Police legally required to protect us question It does a poor job of tying the knot on the Why don't we leave depend on a police force to protect us. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Jun 13 '13 at 14:26
  • @SamIam - the answer to "why" is a simple "because police are NOT there with the purpose of protecting us". The rest of the answer is a referenced proof of that statement. – user4012 Jun 13 '13 at 15:05
  • @DVK you come at a lot of answers with a rather obvious political dogma, so I think it's to be expected that some will disagree with the particular decisions as to which sources to cite based on their own political dogma. 'tis the nature of the beast, it seems, with a site dedicated to politics. – user1530 Jun 17 '13 at 18:55

You must log in to answer this question.

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