De seguro me recuerdan por otros asuntos controvertidos como usuarios dando puntos negativos sin razón, o usuarios siendo demasiado agresivos en sus comentarios.

Creo que todo esto se reune en una misma característica "usuarios venenosos"

¿Pero que es un usuario venenoso?

Para eso tengo algunas características

1.- El usuario hace comentarios despectivos sobre las preguntas
2.- El usuario hace comentarios despectivos sobre la/las respuestas (no sobre su calidad)
3.- El usuario en lugar de contribuir a las respuestas o comentarios los descalificara (dirá que lo haces mal)

Estos son los que considero usuarios con un exceso de ego mal acumulado y conflictivos/confrontativos que vuelven la experiencia amarga para quien aporta y confusa para quien pregunta, por que en lugar de encontrar una respuesta, lo que encuentra es una guerra argumental sobre cual respuesta es la correcta, en lugar de una respuesta enriquecida.

Ahora bien, para los primeros dos puntos es sencillo flaguear el comentario. pero el tercero lo considero algo difícil de manejar, permisible, mas no aceptable. Sin embargo no podemos negar el derecho de una aportación, así que, solo podemos limitarnos a hacer un trabajo de conciencia de : como evitar ser un "usuario venenoso"

Entonces, como evito ser un "Usuario venenoso" ?

Considero que esto no es mas que autocontrol de "querer tener la razón" y de dejar de considerar que los demás están equivocados. Así que intenta:

1.- Solo si estés absolutamente seguro que la respuesta es incorrecta: limítate a decir que no estas de acuerdo y aporta tu propia respuesta
2.- Contribuye sin ofender, ni desacreditar.
3.- Solo si es necesario: defender tu argumento sin ser confrontativo.

Y un recordatorio final: Este lugar es para responder dudas, no para demostrar que estamos en lo correcto, a fin de cuentas nadie es dueño de la verdad.

  • 2
    Creo que esta pregunta tiene demasiado de "autorrespuesta". El modelo de los stacks invita a responder nuestras propias preguntas, y siendo esta un discusión meta, pues hay más razón todavía para participar en tu propia pregunta, pero creo que este hilo mejoraría si la pregunta simplemente explicase el problema y con tu propia respuesta(posteada como tal) propusieses pontenciales soluciones o dieses tu opinión sobre el asunto. Así es además más fácil mostrar apoyo a lo que es pregunta/problema o respuesta/solución/opinión y las ideas quedan más claras.
    – Diego
    Mar 29 '18 at 1:37
  • Mención especial: Lista de comentarios útiles para el sitio. Aquí hay una lista de comentarios "enlatados" que solemos usar para recordar ciertas normas de tipo "be nice", como que no nos pasemos mucho con los votos negativos, tratemos de ser comprensivos cuando ayudamos a los demás a mejorar sus posts, etc. No dudes en añadir alguno si piensas que pueden ser de ayuda para la comunidad.
    – Diego
    Mar 29 '18 at 1:42
  • @diego - En Meta este tipo de pregunta está bien, en mi experience de otros sitios de SE. Mar 29 '18 at 17:39

I hope I will be forgiven for answering in English this time.

I've observed (in relation to myself and others) that when one is feeling uncomfortable on a SE site, it can be difficult to write a Meta post constructively about the problem. I think you've succeeded, and thanks for bringing it up.

If you would add several example links to your post I think your question would be even more constructive and useful.

I will focus on your Point 3 in this answer, since, as you say, that's the part that's not immediately clear.

3.- El usuario en lugar de contribuir a las respuestas o comentarios los descalificara (dirá que estás mal).

Some background

I've seen a wide gamut across SE sites on how to handle comments. It appears to be up to each SE site community to figure out how it wants to do things, although there is some discussion about best practice at SE Meta, and there is a Help Center article about comments, which states

When should I comment?

You should submit a comment if you want to:

  • Request clarification from the author;
  • Leave constructive criticism that guides the author in improving the post;
  • Add relevant but minor or transient information to a post (e.g. a link to a related question, or an alert to the author that the question has been updated).

When shouldn't I comment?

Comments are not recommended for any of the following:

  • Suggesting corrections that don't fundamentally change the meaning of the post; instead, make or suggest an edit;

  • Answering a question or providing an alternate solution to an existing answer; instead, post an actual answer (or edit to expand an existing one);

  • Compliments which do not add new information ("+1, great answer!"); instead, up-vote it and pay it forward;

  • Criticisms which do not add anything constructive ("-1, see previous comments you scallywag!"); instead, down-vote (and provide or up-vote a better answer if appropriate);

  • Secondary discussion or debating a controversial point; please use chat instead;

  • Discussion of community behavior or site policies; please use meta instead.

But these guidelines are interpreted differently depending on the site. Here are two extreme paradigms I've observed:

Example of heavy comment policing: Interpersonal Skills Beta. From a Meta question:

Comments are for requesting more information and suggesting improvements....
Comments are not for answers; answers are for answers.... You cannot close a question saying it does not belong here and then proceed to answer it in comments. That is the worst of both worlds.... Answering questions in comments only invites others to respond and doesn't actually help curate content that can be properly vetted.

Example of anything nice goes: Academia SE, where some extremly polemical topics come up at times. I will quote a question and two of the pretty upvoted answers it received, which I think reflect accurately the philosphy and practice regarding comment tolerance at Academia. I will add that (1) long discussions of questions and answers sometimes occur at Academia, and typically mods will dump the whole chain into Chat, which usually has a somewhat dampening effect; and (2) I have learned to consistently flag anything flaggable at Academia, and the moderators are 95 - 99% consistent about enforcing the niceness policy.

Now, for the question and the two answers, which were written by participants with respective reputations of 135k, 84k and 138k. The second of the two answers was written by a moderator.

  • (question) I have noticed a tendency on this site for people to post answers as comments. I don't know why this is, but it happens often, and then the comment gets many "up-votes" as an "answer."

    My approach to this has been to ask people to convert their comment into an answer, then once this is done vote it up and flag the original comment for deletion. Here is a recent example (where I haven't flagged for deletion, in support of this question). I'm not happy with that solution, however, because it ends up throwing away the associated comment-votes.

    I'd like to understand why people do this, whether others feel it is a problem as well, and if so, is there a better way to handle it?

  • (answer 1) At least for me, it is (for some reason) psychologically easier to just drop into a question a leave a short comment than to write an answer. If I write an actual answer, I usually try to put down at least ~15 minutes of writing time (I try to not write very short answers), and sometimes I just don't have the time. For comments, 5 seconds are enough.

    However, I usually just leave a short comment-as-answer when I think that the answer is obvious enough that somebody else will write the same as an answer anyway. Hence, I usually don't think in these cases that I have some sort of magical special knowledge that isn't available to many other members of this community.

  • (answer 2) The reason is that one-sentence answers are frowned upon as independent answers on Stack Exchange sites. Therefore people tend to view material that firs into a comment as too short to be a free-standing answer. I don't think there's an easy fix for this, as it's a cultural issue.

Regarding what you wrote, Mike/Erin, about comments that critique or even shred an answer:

When one downvotes an answer, one is invited to leave feedback in a comment. Not doing so can sometimes feel like a slap in the face ("drive-by downvoting"). On the other hand, if the comment comes across as judgmental or dismissive of what I wrote, then I for one would prefer the drive-by approach, frankly. And this leads me to...

My personal opinion

In general, I think that constructive criticism can be good. Notes:

  • One should titrate the level of criticism one provides, by observing how the participant is taking the criticism. Everybody has their own subjective level of what they are comfortable with, and one should take this into account. For example, what one person might find toxic, another might find annoying.

  • Debates with repetition are pointless.

  • Example of a negative style: "In this answer, you fail to ...." I know there are some SE sites where sentences including this word, "fail," are common. I find that style abhorrent.

  • Example of a style which is not out and out negative, but which doesn't have a friendly tone: "Deberías añadir un poco más."

  • Examples of a tactful style: "I think this answer could be strengthened by ..."; "made even stronger by"; "Interesting idea. Could you give some supportive reasoning or documentation to strengthen your answer?"

  • Most regular participants at Spanish Beta, including me, are uncomfortable with what might be considered sloppy writing. I fully accept that this is weird, compared to the rest of the internet. But I think, Mike/Erin, it would be helpful if you made even more use of a spell checker and proofreading of your own. (I do acknowledge the progress you've made in this regard since I wrote a related Meta post, When the line between nice and not nice is fuzzy.)


Una parte importante sobre le manejo de usuarios venenosos es, como dices, usar los flags.

Los moderadores no podemos, materialmente, revisar cada contribución (cada pregunta, respuesta, comentario en el sitio principal, meta y chats). Aparte, es mucho más difícil darse cuenta de que el usuario venenoso ha dejado "x" número de mensajes a los usuarios A, B y C (para ellos es muy fácil ver que ese usuario la tiene tomada con ellos, pero no siempre es fácil correlacionar todos estos datos).

Los flags no solo se usan para reportar una contribución ofensiva. Puedes levantar un flag para llamar la atención de los moderadores, y así abrir un canal de comunicación para dialogar y explicar el problema con el equipo de moderadores.

enter image description here

Aparte, tanto fedorqui como yo podemos ser contactados en nuestras direcciones de correo (mira la descripción de nuestros perfiles), en caso de que quieras mandar un correo (o usar una cuenta anónima) en lugar de usar los recursos del stack.

Una vez los moderadores estamos al tanto del problema, podemos discutirlo y evaluarlo y ofrecer ayuda y consejos a aquellos involucrados para lidiar con el problema. A veces basta con darle al usuario venenoso un toque de atención. A veces basta con involucrar a todas las partes en una discusión de chat para aclarar las cosas (el usuario "venenoso" era realmente alguien bienintencionado pero con muy poco tacto a la hora de ofrecer feedback). A veces el usuario venenoso es prácticamente un trol de internet y hay que sancionarlo y vigilar sus contribuciones hasta que se cansa de hacer daño.

En definitiva, si un usuario se convierte en un impedimento para que un usuario esté cómodo en el stack o se sienta libre de hacer las aportaciones que considere oportunas, por favor, ponedlo en conocimiento del equipo de moderación.

You must log in to answer this question.

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