0

So, I just saw an answer that has some questionable advice. It's been there for a couple months; I'm pretty surprised that no one has said anything or downvoted it (esp. given how careful people seem about food safety).

It's a long answer, that clearly took some thought and has potentially useful info, so an outright delete might be rough. Also, there's a language-barrier issue (so maybe the poster wasn't able to fluently say "I know that some of this is a bad idea according to official standards and the many meat-safety answers on this site, but it's what I do at home").

I would comment, but I don't have the rep. It seems I also don't have the rep to flag. (I take some issue with the system working that way, but that's a different issue, obviously.)

So, would someone please take a look at violadaprile's answer to the following? (Then take appropriate action on that and this meta-Q (delete, comment for me to self-delete))

What ingredients do you add to your meat to help to reduce (bad) bacteria?

(Actually, going back, the question is both downvoted and closed - so maybe delete it?)

  • Meanwhile I attract downvotes for ... oh, nevermind ... – hunter2 Jul 8 '13 at 14:49
  • The question isn't closed - it's protected. I went ahead and took preemptive action there because I'd seen another low quality answer, and vague folk remedy style food safety questions like this are a bit prone to attracting dangerously bad answers. – Cascabel Jul 8 '13 at 23:22
  • Duly noted, fair point – hunter2 Jul 9 '13 at 3:11
  • Per my first comment to @Jefromi (and what I meant about 'self-delete' in my question) - I know this isn't a great meta question, and now the issue is resolved. Should I delete this meta-Q? – hunter2 Jul 9 '13 at 3:13
3

I appreciate the vigilance on food safety issues, but I don't think the question is off topic, although it might not be a very smart question.

The first two answers are quality information, and have received the upvotes.

The third answer from Violapadrile has not received any upvotes.

My opinion is that no action is required here, although some comments might add value (once you have the rep required, I cannot remember how much it is). The normal voting process seems to be doing the right thing, and when you have more rep, you can add a downvote if you feel it is warranted.

  • Oh, the question is fine, I meant that specific answer. Given the meat-safety vigilance that I took to be the norm here, I'm surprised that it hasn't attracted downvotes, or at least a comment - especially due to the part in bold near the top. (I could see the Q being closed as dupe b/c meat-safety has been asked a lot, but I didn't mean to advocate that, particularly) // 50 points; I passed it, then got pushed back down. As I said, I feel that's a bad policy, but that's tangential (and I'm sure has been discussed elsewhere). – hunter2 Jul 8 '13 at 16:36
  • I somehow never noticed this until today. I would normally have downvoted it, although Violapadrile had a very very rough go while she was active. – SAJ14SAJ Jul 8 '13 at 16:39
  • Yeah. I mean, I didn't follow/stalk her case (otherwise), but clearly she was trying in that answer. Real shame to lose people who care - and an Italian cook, no less. SE can be rough on new posters. Thank you. – hunter2 Jul 8 '13 at 17:09
  • About to put a comment. Would it be appropriate to edit - either put a disclaimer in, or move the worst parts out? – hunter2 Jul 8 '13 at 17:11
  • 2
    We kind of frown on 3rd party edits that change the substantive meaning, or well, editorialize, but I will leave that question for one of the moderators to handle... – SAJ14SAJ Jul 8 '13 at 17:24
  • Makes sense. Thanks. – hunter2 Jul 8 '13 at 17:26
4

StackExchange sites are mostly community-moderated, so in general, "can somebody look at this" is reserved for really egregious cases - answers that don't actually answer the question, things with no conceivable value, spam, offensive content, and so on. If you do see things like that, you can ask a moderator to look at them by flagging.

Otherwise, voting is supposed to handle things. As SAJ14SAJ said, voting has mostly done its job there - though I wish there were more votes in some places. (The fact that there aren't is mostly a product of few people looking at it, which means it's probably not that big a deal.) You can certainly do your part by voting - although you'll need to accumulate a little more rep before you can downvote, looks like.

  • I'd call the part I indicated egregiously dangerous - and I didn't have the rep to even comment. Now that I do/have, I'd call it settled/good enough. I understand that comments and downvotes were more appropriate here than a meta question, but again, I could do neither and saw neither and it's a safety issue that has .. sat on the counter for a few months. – hunter2 Jul 9 '13 at 3:04
  • From what I've seen, SA goes by Gov policy (eg, FDA and similar), or in general 'strictest widely accepted'. I'd say there are several obvious reasons. Many of us are probably a little less strict in practice. I have done plenty of food-safety-verboten things, in practice, but even by loose standars, covering off-smelling meat with beer and garlic .. come on. // One other point - the hovertext on downvote says "is not useful". As I said above, she tried and there is some good, or at least interesting, info in the long answer. I would still downvote it (and comment), just sayin... – hunter2 Jul 9 '13 at 3:11
  • I cannot agree more on this: Otherwise, voting is supposed to handle things. Moderators are not supposed to handle everything. Do you think the title is bad? Suggest an edit, or edit the question. Do you think the answer is giving a bad advice? Down-vote it. Moderators should not called to judge the correctness of an answer; they can eventually be called in for an answer that just says "I have the same problem; did you find out how to fix it?" – kiamlaluno Jul 28 '13 at 11:33

You must log in to answer this question.

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