9
\$\begingroup\$

In response to this meta question and this comment in The 2nd Monitor, I'm curious how Code Review meta would feel about the idea of a maintained list of useful, on-topic blogs maintained by active Code Review users.

The idea is that the meta question would explain what the list is, and the answers would each individually be a particle blog along with an index of useful/relevant/topical individual posts on that blog. Every answer to that post should be marked as community wiki, and every answer should also conform to the same format, which would be outlined in the question itself.

Would there be genuine interest in this? (It might make for a useful resource when you need to add an off-site resource to an answer you're posting.)

Would this be something that's okay to do on the meta? Does it fall under a realm similar to this post for frequently posted comments (in that perhaps these are frequently used review resources)?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Who qualifies as an "active Code Review user"? \$\endgroup\$ – 200_success Mar 26 '16 at 23:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ Anyone with a post or comment? \$\endgroup\$ – nhgrif Mar 26 '16 at 23:50
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I would be very concerned about blogspam. \$\endgroup\$ – 200_success Mar 26 '16 at 23:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Do you have a recommendation? I mean, ultimately, it's still a Q&A. If someone feels an answer is not within the spirit of the question, it could be flagged. Otherwise, voting at, a minimum, ends up sorting the higher quality blogs to the top of the list of answers. \$\endgroup\$ – nhgrif Mar 26 '16 at 23:52
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Flagging just puts the moderators in a tough position of deciding what's worthy of deletion. \$\endgroup\$ – 200_success Mar 26 '16 at 23:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ Can we downvote this to show disagreement? \$\endgroup\$ – Nathan Basanese Apr 5 '16 at 22:36
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @NathanBasanese downvoting to show disagreement is encouraged on meta, and answers explaining why you disagree are even better \$\endgroup\$ – Dannnno Apr 5 '16 at 22:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @nhgrif: Voting, at a minimum, ends up sorting the more popular blogs to the top of the list of answers. \$\endgroup\$ – Nathan Basanese Apr 5 '16 at 22:48
5
\$\begingroup\$

I'm all for it. There's good advice on a couple of those blogs which is referenced every once in a while in an answer or a comment.

Can we abuse meta for this?

Totally. We've made list questions before[1][2].

We've even done community-based questions which had everything to do with the actual users and next to nothing with the site itself[3].

People are already collecting blogs[4][5]. Let's make it easier on everyone by collecting them all in one place.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Who watches the "one list to rule them all"? Who watches them? \$\endgroup\$ – Nathan Basanese Apr 5 '16 at 22:50
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @NathanBasanese The community, naturally. \$\endgroup\$ – Mast Apr 6 '16 at 6:31
-2
\$\begingroup\$

This plays with fire that has already singed the Stack Exchange model.

I think I can summarize this proposal as follows: "Let codereview.stackexchange.com lend its weight behind specific blogs or authors."

Pro:

Con:

  • This will obviate the more natural process of individual users creating lists of resources, which short-circuits some of the community vetting we already have.
  • Blogspam
  • codereview.stackexchange.com lends its weight behind specific blogs or authors.
  • Moderator control and responsibility increases in areas that it should not, like opinionated stacks.
  • The stakes go up for those who want to "game the system", so to speak.
  • Endorsing a blog wholesale does not account for past or future gaffes or bad advice.
  • Choice of which blogs deserve such endorsement is a matter of opinion (maybe keep the list on meta?)

These Stack Exchange sites have enough gaming going on in them without adding even more chances for it.

Many programming blogs have one or two really good posts, but others that stink.

What's more, some of the topics discussed in programming blogs are very controversial.

Whether intentionally or not, this means that Code Review as a whole, rather than its individual users or answers, now takes a stance.

While this sort of thing may not fundamentally change who has a stake in this community, it can easily make people feel disenfranchised. The detractors of the Stack Exchange model have enough legitimate complaint already.

Posts which list blogs are fine. Let the people decide which lists of blogs have the most value. Making "one list to rule them all" leads to questions of which blogs win and which lose, which does not make sense for the mandate of a no-nonsense Q&A site.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Just so you know "Code Review ... now takes a stance" is the point of this meta post. Also, I don't actually understand what you are trying to say. Your points jump all over the place and are somewhat vague. So much so that all I really get from this is that some people don't like SE, and you don't like the internet being turned into a popularity contest. You may want to rephrase this answer so we can better grasp what you mean. \$\endgroup\$ – Peilonrayz Apr 6 '16 at 9:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ Arguments are not soldiers for one side or the other to be knocked down or supported, and whoever has men standing after the battle wins. So if a change leads to the creation of a negative point, that doesn't mean that for THAT reason the change shouldn't be made. Rather, you ought to weigh both pros and cons before saying yes or no. In this case, you're pointing at the possibility for a small group of users to hold viewpoints which may or may not be the best views, but , due to be being popularized via such a 'library', are presented as "the stance of Code Review". cont. \$\endgroup\$ – Pimgd Apr 6 '16 at 11:48
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Such a stance however doesn't happen, I think. The intent of this 'library', is not "this is the truth and you should learn it", but rather "hey if you're interested in blogs by CR users, you should read these blogs". It is not a way to push an agenda. Should you subscribe to this viewpoint anyway, then I point you towards community ads; there we as a community decide what people see as advertisements for various products, directly promoting those products "as" Code Review. That's a far more extreme version than just a blog listing. \$\endgroup\$ – Pimgd Apr 6 '16 at 11:56

You must log in to answer this question.

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