What do you think about Y!A cracking down on chat?

It seems to me that Yahoo misunderstands the value of their format, which lies in the realm of open discussion.

Here one can ask a question without a definite answer and witness the debate that ensues on the topic. That is the benefit to the asker, being able to watch the discussion among the users who have a clue about the possible answers.

"Which is P.G. Wodehouse's best book?" ----> This question requires discussion, either directly or indirectly, among the respondents in order to provide the asker with the fullest point of view.

"Which books did P.G. Wodehouse write?" ------> This seems to be the type of question Y!A wants asked, but it is much simpler for all involved for the asker simply to go to Google and search it.

So in one sense, Y!A wants to put themselves out of business if they truly wish to censor discussion.

I recently asked a question about running a marathon, a question which no one has responded to properly, so if I point out to these responders that they didn't answer my question by editing to add details would I be guilty of chatting? It certainly seems so, but that is hardly what it is.

The rules and regulations Y!A has proposed are not only to their own detriment but unenforceable on fair grounds. Every instance of chatting would need to be weighed individually in order to discern if it is indeed chatting or a request for clarification or a point in discussion which is leading to the true answer. It seems fairly obvious from the implications of this question and the blog post that Socrates would be banned from Y!A in quite a hurry.

And further, I would propose that there is no service provided to "serious users" that they could not receive in higher quality through other sources. The simple fact is that Y!A is currently and will always be largely devoid of scholars for the simple fact that scholars currently at work in their field don't have time to field random questions on a green bordered website. However, this is not to say that these scholars are not sharing information or fielding random questions, quite the opposite. Many universities feature departmental websites where a student can go for virtual tutoring. There are dozens of serious discussion threads dedicated to sharing ideas and theories in almost every field (this is, in fact, one of the reasons the internet was created after all). But the point remains that they are not dawdling around Y!A with their pretty avatars and points. So, I suggest that serious users without the humor or patience to put up with more relaxed users should find a serious site on which to do their research. A good way to judge the seriousness of the site is to notice how uncommercial, how lacking in adverts a truly scholarly discussion site is.

I think this is pretty silly policy on the part of Y!A, however I don't think it will really change anything in the long haul. This site is too commercially driven to risk upsetting a wide range of users, and there are simply too many users with too much ease of creating multiple accounts for this to be a strictly enforced idea. They may well try, and some folks will certainly go around reporting but in the end the site will be the same as it always is.

Not Y!A too! Right after my school cracks down, Yahoo decides to do the same. This is not fun. What about all the people who chat sparingly and intellectually?

I get it. Yahoo wants to be professional. A place where people searching searching for an answer can find it quick and easy. But there are places - Polls and Surveys, for example - where chat is nearly unavoidable.

I just think that this is too strict. Granted, questions directed at one specific user should be banned. Commenting on an answerer, however, is to me taking it too far. I don't know anyone who has had a problem with that, unless something insulting was said (in which case the answer ought to be reported regardless of whether it's chat or not).

Also, I love the occasional game and odd polls. What's wrong with that? I could've sworn that was what the Polls and Surveys section was for....

Screw it.

Origin: Interesting question.

Joshms: Great answer.

Jimmy Jazz: I love your attitude.

Alice: Although some chat is taking things too far, or just wasting everyone's time, more often than not I agree with you. Most answerers can chat respectfully.

Kat: You make a good point, but I still believe this is a site for adults, and we ought to be treated as such. At least to some extent.

Goldfish: I most certainly agree. I might be in a little trouble myself...

Kelly: You bring up a great point about the trolls. I doubt this will end well.

Do you think avatar games, chat, and odd polls have an adverse effect on

the Quality of Yahoo! Answers?

Avatar games-- No. I don't think most users are concerned with avatars.

For those who are, let them have their fun.

Chat-- I can understand how it might distract from the subject, and

confuse an unfamiliar reader. On the other hand, some people know

how to read through the personal responses, and some might even

find "winks and nods" fun to read.

Odd Polls-- They're entertainment. Entertainment tends to retain

people for the more serious stuff. Odd polls are a service.

____

Do chat and strange games played using the Y!A format take away from time

spent on more serious questions?

Time? No. I think users of Y!A spend time here as they choose. Sure,

you can get entangled, but no one is forcing you to participate in the games.

____

And what do you think of Y!A's definition of chat?

"We also consider questions that call out other users by name to be chatting."

I didn't read their definition. I won't read ANY of their definitions, or rules. I'd

rather learn through trial and error, or through posts such as yours. That

detached "ruler" is just not my cup of tea. It's feels oppressive. Most of us

aren't idiots. The entire thing is hardly serious enough for me to read "THE RULES."

Give me a break. The best I can say for rules is that they keep people employed

at Y!A. (I guess it's easy to forget that Y!A users ensure their jobs.)

But, I do empathize with Y!A's attempt at quality control. I discovered Y!A through

Google, while searching for serious information. However, I suppose silly searches

in a place like Google might offer helpful, silly answers. The Internet dies with too

many rules because its very size demands diversity.

What I find most amusing is the idea that people are sitting in a room somewhere,

attempting to control this thing. I imagine them with furrowed brows, hands flailing

about, personal hatreds of select Y!A users, etc... They should post those meetings

on You Tube someday-- in the distant future. Such meetings could offer insight

about Internet communities, and their design.

I'm screwed. That's what I think.

Their definition is strict. Yahoo should worry, first and foremost, about all of the glitches they have. Er...did they not notice that? When the thumbs up and down were doing a funny dance, where were they? (They're still dancing, in fact.)

After that, they should probably worry about the other questions and all of the trolls roaming around here. I can't name how many Nike trolls I've come across. They've seemed to multiply overnight.

When they've dealt with those problems and all the other ones, maybe then they should worry about chatting on questions. I try not to do it, but sometimes I just can't help it. It sucks to think that others who're really ruining this site for everyone are getting away with it because they're worried about people who "chat". What a joke.

I will not abandon hope, though.

As for whether it lowers the quality of Yahoo, that's ridiculous. It's not like most people are coming on here for serious questions. The majority of the questions are for fun. People come here to procrastinate. Who procrastinates by asking serious questions?

Goodness gracious.

That is so stupid! I wonder if they realize that half (more than half, really.) the Top Contributors (rightfully named so) on Yahoo only stick around because of the other users and being able to "chat" with them. Look at the TCs and regulars in B&A! Do you suppose any of them would stick around if Yahoo reinforced these rules?

Honestly, all the great answerers would most likely leave this site and then it would be left with nothing but trolls, which would obviously make it difficult for askers to get good answers to their questions. These rules would do nothing to help make Y!A a better place. I like it just the way it is, thanks.

And just how are they gonna inforce all these rules without creating *more* trolls? Plot hole.

My initial thought was, Yahoo is so weird! They pick the strangest things to focus on. And, since they really can't enforce this rule, they wrote up a blog entry to get us to tattle on everyone.

I think it's silly. Yahoo is silly when it comes to Yahoo Answers. The only thing they've done so far that's seemed sensible to me was to ban links from level 1 users. Their definition of chat is what makes the site go 'round.

Everyone's already elaborated, so there's really no need for me to say anything else.

I think it's great and hopefully more people will become aware and do their part in community moderation. The problem is that people who get in the habit of posting in such a manner don't sequester themselves in P&S. It spills into other categories (such as the countless "m i hawt?!" posts in the Beauty sections) and pushes valid questions down the list, making them less visible and likely to be answered.

I also hate how people abuse the additional comments section to call out answers they don't like. I almost always report those, especially when they are insulting a respondent who did not insult them first.

ETA: Usually people choose to answer those questions because it's an easy 2 points. People interested only in leveling up will flock to "am I pretty?" questions because a simple "yes" or "no" requires very little effort. You'll notice most of the people who answer those types of questions don't participate much outside of chatty/poll type questions.

I also don't like it when people address answerers by name, because it's usually abused. It's one thing if someone asks for clarification and the person adds details for that purpose; however, the problem is that this is how it usually goes:

"Where should I do my back to school shopping?"

"Kohl's"

"American Eagle"

"Abercrombie"

"Wal-Mart"

Asker comes back and adds more info:

"Uummmm, person 4, thatz jus st00pit. i dunt shop @ walmart cuz it sux0r...but wateva, thnx 4 nuthin!"

I don't understand why this matters. I mean sure there are rules. And we must follow the rules. Heaven forbid we not follow the rules.

I only report spam. The people in that blog who boast of reporting avatar games are like those embittered hall monitors from junior high who couldn't get dates and had poor complexions. What a bunch of nerds, man.

The thing is they like to pretend this is some very formal prim and proper Q&A site.

Q "My dear fellow, who do you think will win the AL East pennant this year?"

A "Well old boy if I were a betting man I'd put my money on the Yankees of New York."

Whatever, I'ma do what I'ma do, f*ck 'em.

No What you are noticing is a large group of new members who have not read the guidelines and keep posting the same type of question. Even after receiving their violation they will not take the time to read and discover what they are doing wrong.

Avatar "Games": Guilty - When I switched avatars with cole i

Calling Out Users: Guilty - All my responses when I say things like "@____"

Apparently I'm just an all-around terrible user here.

I think this is terrible.

It's going to convince more people to troll around reporting like it's their job.

These questions that they qualify as "chat" are part of the reason why this site is enjoyed by myself and a slew of other top contributors as well.

If we're all going to be suspended for having innocent fun, then I guess they'll just be left with questions like "do my homework please?" and "what's your favorite color?" - because apparently those are what this site is supposed to be about.

"There’s no need to email the team—we will remove the abusive content."

They make is sound like we're mugging somebody.

I'm personally hoping this is just yahoo trying to intimidate us.