This stat is shown at area51:

enter image description here

I wonder what can I or others do to revert this.

I upvote most of questions that appear at the home page.

I think even the question is poor or difficult to answer, we must leave at least a feedback on comments why the question doesn't have a good answer. So students feel they can have a feedback, even if their question is not good.

I also use to think some minutes if I have a new question to add to the site. I will post questions myself if I find they are good.

What else can me or people that answer do?

| |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I can't think of anything except to just keep answering questions with good quality answers. $\endgroup$ – Will Feb 12 at 20:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I wonder if a search of main meta might turn up something? $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 13 at 13:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @uho I have asked it on main meta, in the case the experienzed users on the site can give us some advices. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/343689/… $\endgroup$ – user18590 Feb 14 at 12:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ that's excellent! $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 14 at 12:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Given that this site wants answers with references, making questions and answers rank equally is stupid. $\endgroup$ – David Hammen Feb 25 at 3:01
  • $\begingroup$ Voting down and closing questions/flagging them should be encouraged in proper circumstances. Most of the time, users improvise and ask a better question next time. $\endgroup$ – honeymoly Sep 18 at 21:04

My first thoughts are:

  1. Ask more on-topic and at least somewhat interesting questions ourselves

    That should include people who answer a lot and are now too shy to post questions because it might interfere with their "answerer persona"

    It's always okay to ask a good question to which you know think you already know the answer! It provides a way for new users to get more involved in the site, and you never know, you might learn something you didn't actually know ;-)

  2. Ask questions with catchy titles that jump to the hot network question sidebar

    Titles shouldn't be stretched too far or be too catchy but as far as I know the HNQ sidebar is the single best easy way to bring in new users.

Also see answers to @Universal_learner's related question in the Main Meta.

| |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I gave a bounty to the answer in the meta post and we received some more feedback. $\endgroup$ – user18590 Feb 23 at 18:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I earned some rep on meta and I do not do any mod task, not participating, so in a week or so I will start another bounty "looking for more advices at ES" $\endgroup$ – user18590 Feb 23 at 18:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Universal_learner that's great, but chances are that a second bounty immediately after the first may not help. Most meta people are regular readers so they will probably have already seen the question the first time. And remember that each additional bounty that you put on the same question must be double the previous! If that one is +100 the minimum you can use for the next bounty is +200. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 24 at 2:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Universal_learner Here's what I know about bounties: 1, 2, 3, 4 $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 24 at 2:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Re Ask questions with catchy titles that jump to the hot network question sidebar Yes! More superficiality is exactly what this site needs. That was sarcastic. $\endgroup$ – David Hammen Feb 25 at 3:02
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidHammen grin I understand, but HNQs do bring SE users to sites they might not have otherwise visited. For sure they have broadened my SE horizons. And while Is the ISS a tennis racket? might have been "a bridge too far" it is possible to engineer a title to be both representative and "catchy" though maybe we can find a better term than "catchy". $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 25 at 3:19
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidHammen I "engineered" this title so that it would be both clear and likely go on to the HNQ and it did. Antarctic and arctic meltwater is “bad” because it's dark, but why is transparent liquid on white stuff so dark? Do you feel the title demonstrates superficiality, or is it okay? $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 25 at 13:49
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh - There's nothing wrong with that title. I do disagree with your (as I perceive it) overuse of imagery. I'll admit that my stance is a bit biased; one of the (if not the) smartest persons I know cannot see. That is a sample size of one; that one person is the only person I know personally who did a stint at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study. That person knows very well the expected outcome for people of similar intelligence but not quite of IAS caliper intelligence, and that is unemployment. (continued) $\endgroup$ – David Hammen Feb 25 at 14:05
  • $\begingroup$ Visually disabled people with more or less normal intelligence have even fewer chances for gainful employment. The web has exacerbated this disparity, and your posts do not help. $\endgroup$ – David Hammen Feb 25 at 14:06
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh - I know that that's more than a bit disparaging. I did admit a strong bias. I try to write alt text whenever I post an image. (But admittedly I don't always succeed in doing so.) From what I've seen, hardly anyone else on the SO/SE network does so; the alt text on almost all images is "enter image description here". $\endgroup$ – David Hammen Feb 25 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidHammen in the last year or so I've been increasingly conscientious of being sure my questions and answers and most comments are as complete as possible without depending on any images. Inclusion of images and dependence upon images are two different things and I try hard to make sure mine do not have the latter. I may slip up occasionally but I think you are not correct suggesting that my images make the utility and readability of my posts less accessible to visually impaired. If you can find three or four from the past year that show evidence that this is not the case, please share. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 25 at 14:21
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh - Your posts are very heavy on imagery. Either they add value or they don't. If they don't add value, why do you use them? If they do add value, that means you are unintentionally contributing to the already HUGE internet bias against the visually impaired, As a picture supposedly is worth a thousand words, that suggests a 1000 word alt text. I hardly ever go that far, but I have written alt texts that are well over 100 words long. The bar is very low; all you have to do is to write something a tiny bit better than "enter image description here". $\endgroup$ – David Hammen Feb 25 at 14:37
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidHammen I'm not responsible for how big or how bad "the internet" is. Show me three or four of my posts that are disproportionately challenging to visually impaired people compared to others, or objectively and quantitatively demonstrate specific harm that my posts cause the site. Otherwise I'm just going to continue to be me and I'm certain you'll continue to be you. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 25 at 14:40

What can we do to increase the number of questions on the site?

This should not be a primary goal. Okay, it might be a primary goal of the powers that fund the site. But it also is a way to eventually drive the site to a huge Alexa ranking (a smaller Alex ranking is better).

A devil's advocate example: We should revoke the decision to ban rock ID questions. The site's traffic dropped significant after such questions were banned. If question rate was the be-all and end-all, the decision to ban such questions was exactly in the wrong direction.

Here's the problem: The site used to be swamped by these questions. These questions tended to be extremely specific, very low quality, and oftentimes were unanswerable. That did not stop the people who wanted to have someone identify the low quality photo of a rock found in their backyard. High quality contributors were leaving the site. Banning those questions improved the quality of the site, but at the expense of a reduced question rate and reduced traffic.

| |
  • $\begingroup$ Another thing top management could do (and has done) to hurt site quality is equate questions and answers with regard to points. It takes a lot longer to research and then write a good answer than it does to ask a good question. My involvement has dropped off significantly at this corner of the SE network after this decision was levied, and its not just at this corner of the SE network. $\endgroup$ – David Hammen Feb 25 at 2:27
  • $\begingroup$ Yet another thing top management could do (and has done) to hurt site quality is to chase off moderators and high quality contributors. Look at all of the users who have changed their usernames to reflect their support for Monica. To add insult to injury, top management has fired the network's moderators. This is what petty, insecure new managers to exhibit their power. $\endgroup$ – David Hammen Feb 25 at 2:27
  • $\begingroup$ I migth be wrong but I think all ES sites heritage Alexa rating and page rank from stackoverflow. Stacks page rank as wikipedia one is 99 the maximum. That's why we received the flood of id my rock. Once google rastered a few questions, the 99 page rank put us firsts for "identify my rock". Now it is USGS where they sugest to go to a university or store to ask. I agree in that case the site reputation was a bad powerfull weapon, but if we want more questions the 99 page rank is a good weapon, knowing some casual users coming from google may not ask the best questions you will see. $\endgroup$ – user18590 Feb 25 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ I totally agree to give 10 points for a question is excesive. But that is gonna generate more (not so good) content. A company is a company. You make cash at the end. The fact the content is in CC4 license should make them reflexionate a bit. $\endgroup$ – user18590 Feb 25 at 12:10
  • $\begingroup$ I think they have realized they made a mistake meta.stackexchange.com/questions/343890/… $\endgroup$ – user18590 Feb 25 at 12:11
  • $\begingroup$ The new SE corporate management has not made a mistake. They have made many, many, many mistakes over the past year. SE's corporate changeover has exhibited all of the signs of takeover by petty managers who proved the validity of the Peter Principle years ago. $\endgroup$ – David Hammen Feb 25 at 12:27

You must log in to answer this question.