I witnessed a common phenomenomn where an objectively poor quality answer gets widely upvoted because people believe it's funny or because they approve people being salty toward OP.
I identify poor quality as generally short answers, opinion and advice-based, and possibly including salt and disregard to OP situation. For example advocating OP to quit their job.
I wonder to an extent if self-moderation in the Workplace function well enough for quality content to raise. It seem to have been discussed before to add in the FAQ a "back it up" policy to ensure answers are at least based on experience rather than pure opinion, but as much as I can see this have not been successfuly implemented. I wonder if other kind of policy could help identifying and moderating poor content.
In Interpersonal Stack Exchange, a stack I'm active in too, this wouldn't happen so often, because the number of post per moderator is low and the policy for both questions and answers are much more strict so the request to meet quality standards are always there. For example, a question that could belong to the Workplace have been closed because it lacked detail and expected outcome and would likely generate opinion based answers, but I'm fairly sure would be still open if posted here initially. This left me wondering if we are incitative enough to quality content.
As I would imagine, there should be general guidelines and example as to what is a good or bad answer, but the help and the FAQ are very relaxed on posting advices as answers.
So there is two components to this question:
- Do you believe the posting policy are adequate to meet our quality standards?
- If not, is there any specific policy that could help getting less salty and opinion-based answers?
I originally asked another question and edited for clarity.
How can we further improve the quality, especially getting rid of salty and opinion-based answers?