8

I'm slowly losing my mind with the peer reviewers of SP.SE.

I have been reviewing SP.SE's flagged posts for at least 2,5 years and the last 6 months or so have been just ridiculous. Completely valid questions just as completely valid answers are being flagged every day. I can't tell the exact reason behind, but to me it seems that if

a) An answer starts with a "so you want to do this? then do it like this"-structure, it may be seen as a clarification requesting comment while it's actually giving a valid answer for the understood scenario. (An example)

b) A question is asked, but the terms used in the question don't exactly resemble the ones that SharePoint uses. (An example)

c) An answer is short and possibly unconditional, but the keyword is short. (An example)

d) An answer is short and has a link so that it may look like a link-only answer while the link is only to support the answer which can be given in only a few words. (An example)

e) An answer doesn't answer the question correctly (it may contain misinformation or doesn't provide what was asked). (An example)

The example links point to posts, not to the related reviews just to avoid pointing fingers too much.

I'm positive this isn't just SP.SE's issue, but I must alarm our community:

This sort of flagging and poor reviewing will only backfire the site.

For a fresh user in the site and possibly recently introduced to the SharePoint itself there are innumerable amount of etiquette rules and terminology trivia that it will be a real challenge to post correctly and exactly correctly with your first (few) post(s). Especially when the user has done its best in the post, having the post marked as invalid or removed just kills the interest to be part of SP.SE community.

What we are missing is humanity in the reviewing. People don't double read a post, nor even always read the post completely. People don't attempt to understand a questioner's scenario and transform it into SharePoint's world. It's humane to misjudge but by this point of observation we have passed the level of humane errors.


The above mentioned cases are in my opinion unambiguously valid posts. In addition posts which ...

1. ask for

can this be done in SP and if yes, then how?

are completely valid. It's the questioner's mistake to expect a completely ready-to-be-used code or a step-by-step manual book configuration documentation as an answer - we are not required to write it in several cases. But to give an upper level solution proposal is what we can do.

2. answer in

do it with insert feature. when the feature is configured, you can use it with insert technology to fulfill your requirement. insert a link which supports and/or further details the answer

structure are completely valid. The answer may become rather concise, but the essence is there. (Overly) detailed answers are still perfectly fitting and often better, but if those would be the only accepted ones, we'd be really short on answers.

But am I wrong?

I need to question this because this activity has been continuous for a while. Maybe the SP.SE's definition for valid posts should be revised. With the O365's scope expanding this should be done anyway.

  • 1
    Similar happened. I posted at a SE Django site for the 1st time. Subject:"Is there a WYSIWYG app I can use for an inherited Django created website?" It was quickly put on hold and still is. FIVE Senior Members, 2 over 200K rep, 1 over 12K, 1 with over 25K and another over 3K immediately subtracted rep points from me just for asking the question. If they found my question off topic, why the hate? Is this what SE is about? Who oversees folks looking to push their authority? If this place isn't the place to ask questions then where? Moe,thank you for looking out for the "little guys". – Mike Rooker May 31 '18 at 3:10
  • 1
    Maybe we can introduce flags for incorrect flags? ;) – Denis Molodtsov May 31 '18 at 23:28
  • surprisingly no responses. reviews get better? – Arun Vinoth Oct 17 '18 at 2:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .