Why did The Question slide?

To be fair, a similar question has already been asked, but since TheQ is increasingly living on the principle of “Twitter”, I will reflect on yours. And along the way I will refer to my own question and answer:

TheQuestion: Need an Answer? Ask TheQuestion

First, the hopes for self-regulation of the community were not fulfilled. The site is full of duplicate questions, which makes your hands drop and you don't want to collect your thoughts and write an entertaining answer. I will take my own observations from the comments — as a person whose first answer here is dated September 2015. Maybe it's a boring whining half-grumble, but still.

It seems to me that the project team missed the moment when the number of visitors began to sharply prevail over their quality.

For me personally, the second half of last year's TheQ sample was famous and attractive primarily because it instilled a culture of information consumption. The local community coped with self-regulation, there was a decent intellectual level of the average user, and the hope that where there are no really competent experts yet, they will definitely appear, because the project is cool in principle and promising. Topics haven't multiplied like flies yet. Some bells rang out even then, however.

But then — either in the winter of this year, or in the spring-there was a critical, apparently, growth in the active audience. The community could no longer regulate itself sufficiently, especially since users were given complete freedom: we do not interfere with the wording of your questions (provided that they do not contain insults), you assign the topics yourself. The only sensible thing to do seems to be to close comments in the public domain. The decision is tough, but justified.

It probably increased the conversion rate and depth of viewing within the site. Because from now on you will not throw out steam in the comments.

Meanwhile, it feels like the sofa-monitor gang has started landing on TheQ and settling in here. The apotheosis of the mess (and that's the correct word) — idle the audience does not want to use the search engine and respect the intellectual work of his predecessors: I was lazy [read old issues], and come serve me (that's why people like the author of the following question publicly in the comments put you… on a past project, go unpunished?.. rhetorical question):

TheQuestion: we will find those who will answer your questions.

In the absence of bans, there will be crooks and crooks who will behave according to the principle that the rules exist to break them. TQ becomes like a chaotic mass. This is painfully reminiscent of the plot of two Russian troubles, when people drive into oncoming traffic, turn through two solid ones, a rod under a “brick”with the expression, they say, I need it most. And the police are inactive. In a dialogue with gopniks, politeness does not work. To quote Sartre's “Being and Nothing” is hardly an appeal to reason. Actually, even in the web space, you can't do without strict measures. Plus, respectable sites strictly monitor non-compliance with the main commandment of the Internet: the essence of it is that the Network can send anyone to three sad letters.

If I were TheQ's administration, I would introduce pre-moderation at least for questions. After all, they can not be zaminusovat, and some users/ – prostrate day with fire will not find culture. You tell him (her): “Use the search engine.” And you: “Fuck you.” You should not rely on moderators, especially since:

TheQuestion: Need an Answer? Ask TheQuestion

It's full of junk and, I repeat, duplicates in both letter and spirit. In addition, if I had my way, I would adopt the Quora interface: I would hide the rating of responses, displaying it on click and leaving only the +/−buttons. Happiness is not in numbers.

Introduction of likes and top questions… Given the past shortcomings in terms of usability and ease of navigation, I don't think this was a thoroughly thought-out step aimed at increasing the depth of viewing/session duration. I took a look at yandex. Metrica — on average, they view 1.7 pages per session. Actually a question with answers+a link somewhere else. I probably don't fully understand something, but ideally this indicator should exceed 3 pages. Because 1,7 — click from the public ” VK ” +click inside the site; all.

similarweb.comMeanwhile, TQ has a truly encyclopedic potential and broad capabilities in terms of propaedeutics. Over 161700 questions.

I won't say anything about the influx of fakes at all. When a person with an empty profile asks something that they can't say openly (they are afraid of disadvantages or harassment), they should have the right to do so. But what's the point of responding and exerting yourself when your thoughts are juxtaposed with the lines of a character who has nothing behind him, but who has made up a tall tale and sold it to an unsophisticated viewer? Thank you, TheQ, no need, there is a lot of this “good” in social networks.

## LAST YEAR'S THEQ HAD A HUGE ADVANTAGE: EXPERTS COULD BE TRUSTED ALMOST BLINDLY.

And now — what does it matter who said it, the main thing is that it is interesting written.

“We've arrived.” Konstantin Ivanovich Gorbatov, 1911, oil on canvas.

Therefore, serious questions with solid answers rarely appear in the top list. Basically — either hit parades of all sorts of things, or fast-dissolving “psychology” in the spirit of AdMe and public posts with quotes from “successful people”. And the leaders predictably come out with answers that, like a carbon copy, consist of aplomb with my mother's cynicism and the philosophy of the jungle. Plus, self-development is trending again. It remains to wait for 2016 questions from my 2007-8 “Why don't you watch TV?”. And also, sorry, questions with a bias in phallometrics like ” What were your maximum costs for sex?”.

At the same time, you can find dozens of questions that involve deep, really expert knowledge and hang unanswered. That's what's so discouraging.

Naturally, adults, established and educated people quietly vote with their feet or minimize their activity on TQ. Those guests with lodgers who have enough irony, patience and strength to resist this pontoon are worthy of applause.

However, all this went wherever (given the traffic of 5 million monthly visits), the fool is with him, with the top. Even advertising issues are not particularly stressful. The worst part is that as a simple user, I can't manage the content, I can't filter what I'm asked to read. I can't set up the feed and send annoying speakers to the ignore list/ – ok. I can't help but see the scribble of fakes and trolls who don't value their opinion and image. I can't view the questions/answers I like, and I don't even have an “Add to favorites” button for answers. The mice cried and pricked themselves, but they didn't have the opportunity to clean the cactus from needles.

However, this is all my boring whining half with grumbling due to professional deformation — due to the fact that I have to work with large amounts of information, I prefer not to believe in the words of little-known people, especially on the Internet. I'll go read Vedomosti.

One Answer

maxim_k says:

2022-10-18 at 7:28 pm

To be fair, a similar question has already been asked, but since TheQ is increasingly living on the principle of “Twitter”, I will reflect on yours. And along the way I will refer to my own question and answer:

TheQuestion: Need an Answer? Ask TheQuestion

TheQuestion: Need an Answer? Ask TheQuestion

First, the hopes for self-regulation of the community were not fulfilled. The site is full of duplicate questions, which makes your hands drop and you don't want to collect your thoughts and write an entertaining answer. I will take my own observations from the comments — as a person whose first answer here is dated September 2015. Maybe it's a boring whining half-grumble, but still.

It seems to me that the project team missed the moment when the number of visitors began to sharply prevail over their quality.

For me personally, the second half of last year's TheQ sample was famous and attractive primarily because it instilled a culture of information consumption. The local community coped with self-regulation, there was a decent intellectual level of the average user, and the hope that where there are no really competent experts yet, they will definitely appear, because the project is cool in principle and promising. Topics haven't multiplied like flies yet. Some bells rang out even then, however.

But then — either in the winter of this year, or in the spring-there was a critical, apparently, growth in the active audience. The community could no longer regulate itself sufficiently, especially since users were given complete freedom: we do not interfere with the wording of your questions (provided that they do not contain insults), you assign the topics yourself. The only sensible thing to do seems to be to close comments in the public domain. The decision is tough, but justified.

It probably increased the conversion rate and depth of viewing within the site. Because from now on you will not throw out steam in the comments.

Meanwhile, it feels like the sofa-monitor gang has started landing on TheQ and settling in here. The apotheosis of the mess (and that's the correct word) — idle the audience does not want to use the search engine and respect the intellectual work of his predecessors: I was lazy [read old issues], and come serve me (that's why people like the author of the following question publicly in the comments put you… on a past project, go unpunished?.. rhetorical question):

TheQuestion: we will find those who will answer your questions.

In the absence of bans, there will be crooks and crooks who will behave according to the principle that the rules exist to break them. TQ becomes like a chaotic mass. This is painfully reminiscent of the plot of two Russian troubles, when people drive into oncoming traffic, turn through two solid ones, a rod under a “brick”with the expression, they say, I need it most. And the police are inactive. In a dialogue with gopniks, politeness does not work. To quote Sartre's “Being and Nothing” is hardly an appeal to reason. Actually, even in the web space, you can't do without strict measures. Plus, respectable sites strictly monitor non-compliance with the main commandment of the Internet: the essence of it is that the Network can send anyone to three sad letters.

If I were TheQ's administration, I would introduce pre-moderation at least for questions. After all, they can not be zaminusovat, and some users/ – prostrate day with fire will not find culture. You tell him (her): “Use the search engine.” And you: “Fuck you.” You should not rely on moderators, especially since:

TheQuestion: Need an Answer? Ask TheQuestion

It's full of junk and, I repeat, duplicates in both letter and spirit. In addition, if I had my way, I would adopt the Quora interface: I would hide the rating of responses, displaying it on click and leaving only the +/−buttons. Happiness is not in numbers.

Introduction of likes and top questions… Given the past shortcomings in terms of usability and ease of navigation, I don't think this was a thoroughly thought-out step aimed at increasing the depth of viewing/session duration. I took a look at yandex. Metrica — on average, they view 1.7 pages per session. Actually a question with answers+a link somewhere else. I probably don't fully understand something, but ideally this indicator should exceed 3 pages. Because 1,7 — click from the public ” VK ” +click inside the site; all.

similarweb.comMeanwhile, TQ has a truly encyclopedic potential and broad capabilities in terms of propaedeutics. Over 161700 questions.

I won't say anything about the influx of fakes at all. When a person with an empty profile asks something that they can't say openly (they are afraid of disadvantages or harassment), they should have the right to do so. But what's the point of responding and exerting yourself when your thoughts are juxtaposed with the lines of a character who has nothing behind him, but who has made up a tall tale and sold it to an unsophisticated viewer? Thank you, TheQ, no need, there is a lot of this “good” in social networks.

## LAST YEAR'S THEQ HAD A HUGE ADVANTAGE: EXPERTS COULD BE TRUSTED ALMOST BLINDLY.

And now — what does it matter who said it, the main thing is that it is interesting written.

“We've arrived.” Konstantin Ivanovich Gorbatov, 1911, oil on canvas.

Therefore, serious questions with solid answers rarely appear in the top list. Basically — either hit parades of all sorts of things, or fast-dissolving “psychology” in the spirit of AdMe and public posts with quotes from “successful people”. And the leaders predictably come out with answers that, like a carbon copy, consist of aplomb with my mother's cynicism and the philosophy of the jungle. Plus, self-development is trending again. It remains to wait for 2016 questions from my 2007-8 “Why don't you watch TV?”. And also, sorry, questions with a bias in phallometrics like ” What were your maximum costs for sex?”.

At the same time, you can find dozens of questions that involve deep, really expert knowledge and hang unanswered. That's what's so discouraging.

Naturally, adults, established and educated people quietly vote with their feet or minimize their activity on TQ. Those guests with lodgers who have enough irony, patience and strength to resist this pontoon are worthy of applause.

However, all this went wherever (given the traffic of 5 million monthly visits), the fool is with him, with the top. Even advertising issues are not particularly stressful. The worst part is that as a simple user, I can't manage the content, I can't filter what I'm asked to read. I can't set up the feed and send annoying speakers to the ignore list/ – ok. I can't help but see the scribble of fakes and trolls who don't value their opinion and image. I can't view the questions/answers I like, and I don't even have an “Add to favorites” button for answers. The mice cried and pricked themselves, but they didn't have the opportunity to clean the cactus from needles.

However, this is all my boring whining half with grumbling due to professional deformation — due to the fact that I have to work with large amounts of information, I prefer not to believe in the words of little-known people, especially on the Internet. I'll go read Vedomosti.

Log in to Reply

One Answer

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Categories

Recent Questions

Recent Answers