Talk:Question and answer system

notable providers section

There's at least one of the entires (for stack overflow) that's been copy-pasted from this page: http://inspiredm.com/qa-websites/

also, like the page for OSQA itself, the entry for it here feels a lot like an advertisment, possibly because it is also copy-pasted.

I marked the entire section for both advertising and copy-pasting because it seems quite likely that everything has been copy pasted and/or was written by someone with an agenda. -- 2.85.55.227 (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Update Mechanics section: Add Details About Crowdsourcing

Crowdsourcing plays a major role in most Q&A software (especially in the examples provided in this article). However, in the section about Mechanics of Q&A software, there is no mention of this. Hence, changes proposed:

• Update the section that explains the mechanics of Q&A software better, with notes about crowdsourcing, using some content from the following resources:

1. 1. Wikipedia article: Crowdsourcing (write a brief note and also add a link to this page)
2. 2. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/97251/AGRAWAL-THESIS-2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
3. 3. https://books.google.com/books?id=GO9ODgAAQBAJ&pg=PA108&dq=collaborative+problem+solving+crowdsourcing&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg0N21zZTXAhXC7SYKHV1aDucQ6AEIODAD#v=onepage&q&f=false (Introduction and some notes from relevant chapters only)

These changes should be added along with improvements on motivations, classification and answer judgement in social Q&A system (section below).

(Added by User: Shreya345)

"Background” Section: Assessment and Changes

• The "Background" section needlessly makes references to 15,000 BC trying to make the article a little bit like storytelling, hence the first two paragraphs should be removed (redundant) to make the section concise and to the point.
• "Canvas" (the software) has been misspelled, and should also be attached as a link to the Canvas (company) article on Wikipedia, in case the viewer wants more details.
• The section fails to mention other current popular Q&A website and software (Such as StackOverflow) and give some background on these websites. This section about new and currently used software needs to be added.

(Added by User: Shreya345)

Update: Dead Links and Citations

Dead links exist in the article and this needs to be changed. Changes to implement:

• Link #4 in the citations is dead, replace it with the following working link: https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1357191
• Link #5 of the citations is dead, replace it with the following working link: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.298.5064
• The last line of the second paragraph in the Impact section should have a link attached to the "Online Community" section the writer is speaking about (from the same article).
• The article also lacks many related article links that could be added to improve information retrieval from the page.

(Added by User: Shreya345)

Article Evaluation

Improvements on motivations, classification, and answer judgment in social Q&A system

I will be working on improving current contents on the Mechanics part, and making up other factors that help to make sense of Q&A software: classification and answer selection criteria.

• Specifying the motivation part into answer and question behavior: In the Machanics section, the subsection "Aims" can improve by splitting the motivation into two part: motivations on question and answering (15 questioning and 11 answering behaviors) (https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2755/3305)
• Adding a section dedicated to Classification of Q&A systems: I also think it needs to talk about the classification of Q&A software rather than just listing Q&A software in the table. Since they are based on different resources when it comes to answering the question, it will be helpful to know how answering behaviors differ, and how current systems can be classified in those categories. The paper classified Q&A software into three categories: 1) Digital reference services, 2) Expert services, 3) Social Q&A (http://rt4rf9qn2y.scholar.serialssolutions.com/?sid=google&auinit=C&aulast=Shah&atitle=Research+agenda+for+social+Q%26A&id=doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2009.07.006&title=Library+%26+information+science+research&volume=31&issue=4&date=2009&spage=205)
• Criteria on questioners' judging answers (What criteria makes answers qualified?): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.21562/epdf Ayong8 (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Structure

The present structure includes how does the Q&A software work, how does the Q&A software appear and evolve, and how does it work. Although the structure is basically complete, some section should be sub-subject of another. For example, the online community should be a part of development of the Q&A software.

why should online community be a part of development of the QA software Rostaf (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the second paragraph of the article indicates that Quora and Yahoo! Answer are Standalone Q&A communities, which are different from others. There should be talked in more details. According to the website in the citation (http://inspiredm.com/qa-websites/), this paragraph should be rephrase as "There are numerous examples of Q&A Software, some of them are software that allow user to set up their own Q&A website, such as Qhub, OSQA, Question2Answer and Stack Exchange. The Q&A communities such as Quora or Yahoo! Answers are another kind of Q&A website, which only allow users to ask questions and provide answers."

not clear what changes you suggest to make here and in which part of the article Rostaf (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, the IMPACT section is talking about history mostly. For the subject of impact, the statistical data such as the number of user (https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-use-Quora-7/answer/Adam-DAngelo), the number of questions come up and the number of questions that are answered would make more sense. The negative impact should also be discussed. For example, the non-experts’ misleading answers and so on.

I agree that the impact section can be improved, however, again you have not provided any concrete ideas and resources on how you are going to improve it. Rostaf (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The updated structure may include the 1) the generation of the Q&A software(in this section, not only the large corporate need should be mentioned, the psychological need of human beings should also be mentioned.); 2) the development of the Q&A software; 3) the category of the Q&A software (the difference of Quora from others can be discussed in this section.) 4) the mechanics: 5) the impact of Q&A software(both good and bad); 6) comparison of different Q&A software; 7)citation.

I do not see how this structure is improving the current structure and what are your supporting sources for the new minor changes. Rostaf (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

ChenRuo (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Redundancy

The first paragraph in the section "BACKGROUND" has nothing to do with background and should be deleted. It is just a brief introduction of Q&A Software. Additionally, the content of this paragraph is basically covered by the very first paragraph of this wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChenRuo (talk • contribs) 14:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality

Thankfully we finally got rid of the definition of a Q&A site as "a website where the site creators use the images of pop culture icons to answer input from the site's visitors" (!).

But the quality of the page currently leaves much to be desired.

For instance, it starts with "Q&A Software is online software that attempts to answer questions asked by users". This is incorrect. It is not the software that answers questions; it is the users of the software that answers questions.

It also leaves out other Internet phenomena besides mail lists that served or serves the same purpose: Usenet and forums.

--Mortense (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Mathematics

How many tennis balls fill a container that carries 1 tonne of sugar/ soy Mckhumalo (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Taboo

I have serious problems I catch my myself having. Sexual fantasies having sex with my older sister I think she's hot sexy beautiful I have a confession to make I enjoy sniffing her dirty panties 2603:8001:AF00:F1EE:28F6:4DC1:C98A:EAE0 (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

একজন ইমামকে কি কি কারণে আমি সম্মান করব

182.252.81.4 (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)