0
$\begingroup$

I've been a part of the Code Golf stack exchange for a very long time. To keep low quality posts to a minimum they basically require that you first post your question to a sandbox page which allows users to vote on your question in a safe environment! Basically ironing out all of the problems that other users see ahead of time.

Sandbox implementation picture.

The idea is that you're sorting by Newest, not votes. Anyone who wants to "pre-moderate" these posts is welcome to. It would encourage people who are afraid to ask questions to ask more questions. It also might stop some of the "dumb" (there is no dumb question except hoaxer questions) questions from making it to the main site. Here's the rules for the sandbox (in-case you didn't click the sandbox link):

enter image description here

Let me know what you think!

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The canonical question that any suggestion to change something in SE must first address is "what is the problem that this solves?" Code Golf is a very different kind of site than Space SE, what existing problem(s) here do you see that this might address? Can you provide some specific examples or "use cases" where this would have been helpful? What are the down sides you foresee? Twice as many places to look out for users who give new users a hard time perhaps? $\endgroup$ – uhoh Apr 4 at 22:03
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh as sheldon said in the answers it shouldn't be required, it's just a sandbox. If you're unsure of a question to the point of not asking it for sake of the rules, it may give new users a place to start. Having a sandbox as an optional place to ask questions, if done correctly) could help introduce new people. All without the general "downvote because it's a dupe" or "downvote because it's a bad question" which generally scares newer people away. Instead, in comments, you'd be able to explain why it's a bad question and it stops the flags from reaching moderators and staff. $\endgroup$ – Magic Octopus Urn Apr 5 at 9:02
  • $\begingroup$ Across the SE network, which "normal" Q&A sites (besides contest-based Code Golf) have had good success with a Sandbox? I suppose "good success" means they started it and after a substantial period of time it is still actively used. In other words, is there any real evidence that this is something that is effective in regular, factual answer-based Q&A sites? Why do I say factual answer-based? because besides Code Golf the only other site I know of that has a sandbox is World Building SE and that site is a little weird. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Apr 5 at 12:59
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh the question may be which have ever tried a sandbox. This was merely a suggestion for everyone to mull over, I'm not going to fight for it with conviction-- and I can't give you quantitative data on most of the things you are asking as I haven't done the research. At the very minimum it keeps meta/main a little bit cleaner, which I've seen on CodeGolf (admittedly it is different than space). $\endgroup$ – Magic Octopus Urn Apr 5 at 13:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think space exploration is currently too small for it to work $\endgroup$ – JCRM Apr 6 at 8:42
  • $\begingroup$ @JCRM I agree with JCRM. I see this as something useful for sites with substantially more questions per day than ours. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage♦ Apr 6 at 13:44
3
$\begingroup$

In a comment I've asked:

Across the SE network, which "normal" Q&A sites (besides contest-based Code Golf) have had good success with a Sandbox? I suppose "good success" means they started it and after a substantial period of time it is still actively used. In other words, is there any real evidence that this is something that is effective in regular, factual answer-based Q&A sites? Why do I say factual answer-based? because besides Code Golf the only other site I know of that has a sandbox is World Building SE and that site is a little weird.

and the OP's answer is:

I can't give you quantitative data on most of the things you are asking as I haven't done the research.

I vote no because it's never a good idea to just "try stuff" before even doing some basic research on if it works or not. I don't think Space SE needs to be an experiment, and if the person asking if we should have this doesn't even think it's worth spending a few minutes of doing some basic research, then I believe there is not going to be any community inertia behind it.

Before I'd be swayed in the least, I'd like to see an evaluation of how much work would have to be done, and who exactly is committed to doing this work!

I'd like to point out that the angst level of this site is remarkably low and as far as I can tell new users are not having any problems asking their first or second or third questions. Occasionally they are closed but more often users just coach them on how to improve their questions or make helpful edits.

There's no need whatsoever for a separate sandbox.

If it's not broke, don't fix it.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It's not that I haven't done the research so much as it hasn't been tried (as far as I've found), so there is no data other than the examples I've given. You've rejected them as "not being the same" so I don't have other examples and don't really know what you're suggesting I do other than try the idea to get the data. Data is gathered by trying an idea. $\endgroup$ – Magic Octopus Urn Apr 5 at 13:17
  • $\begingroup$ @MagicOctopusUrn then it seems pretty conclusive that this is a non-starter. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Apr 5 at 13:18
  • $\begingroup$ Alrighty then mate, idea withdrawn. Hammer it closed if you want. $\endgroup$ – Magic Octopus Urn Apr 5 at 13:19
2
$\begingroup$

I don't have anything against a sandbox in general, though as others pointed out I'm concerned with the idea of making it a required step. However, our meta on average gets the traffic of a handful of users. Is a representative sample of our close-voters actually going to help people in the sandbox? Or will we end up with a bunch of people thinking their questions should be well-received and then end up getting closed anyway?

| |
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

For new users, I'm all for trying to improve their questions rather than closing them. A sandbox might help in that respect.

For advanced users, it's only a hindrance, and shouldn't be required. I'm already annoyed by the new "click the submit button twice" feature when asking questions; I don't make the newbie mistakes that this new feature supposedly catches. Also, there may be some advanced users who don't like criticisms of their questions.

A reputation threshold somewhere in the range of 1000 to 5000 would seem appropriate.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, I'm not saying adapt the rules in their entirety :). The required aspect is definitely not a good fit 100% agree. It was just an example of how one exchange used it! A lot of those veterans in that sub also do not use the sandbox, at their own peril sometimes though. That's probably one of the more stricker exchanges though in terms of what you can post. $\endgroup$ – Magic Octopus Urn Apr 5 at 8:58
  • $\begingroup$ I've just asked this. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Apr 5 at 13:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thw "click twice" feature is also unneeded if there is no problem with the question. I believe, it only shows the general incompetence of the decision-makers of the company. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Apr 5 at 16:01

You must log in to answer this question.

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