5
$\begingroup$

At this point, given the low activity of the chatroom, it actually posts more often than actual users: this year so far, it posted 16 links versus 1 single user discussing questions.
This makes reading the transcripts to find actual conversations about site moderation/content more difficult than it should be.
I understand the niceties of that feed in a room where it is drowned in conversations but here it seems frankly unnecessary, and potentially harmful (as it significantly increases the noise ratio).

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't feel strongly either way, but I removed the feed for now. If others feel strongly that the feed should be present they should add an answer here. If it reaches consensus it's easy enough to add the feed back again. $\endgroup$ – Logan M Feb 8 '17 at 0:40
5
$\begingroup$

Nope. I'm going to cite myself from about two years ago:

It's kind of sad when xkcd is more active in chat than anyone else.
A long time ago

That was April 12, 2015. I think we can all agree that things haven't changed much then.

Some suggested criteria for terminating an existing chat feed:

  • Are people not really using the information from the feed?
  • Is the feed obscuring useful conversations by blocking long-term conversations?

The answers to both of these are the same: yes. Therefore, I vote that we give the feed the axe - or, rather, after Logan M's removal of it, just keep things how they are.

Disclaimer: I'm an xkcd fan, and I might even have been the one who put it there in the first place. My memory's foggy. But whatever use it once had is no longer there.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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