OK GoneQuiet, I'll bite. The data's public anyways. But it certainly helps to know why we voted the way we did. For what it's worth, I'll pitch my two cents in.
Is Paul speaking with sarcasm in Acts 24:21?
- My vote: Excellent.
- Question: The question is succinct, focused on a specific facet of the text, and answerable.
- Accepted/Top Answer: The accepted answer clearly answers the question, is detailed, and shows its work by logically exegeting the text.
- Other Answers: There is one OK answer and one poor answer. However, since the top answer is excellent, these did not factor into my vote.
- Reflection: If I could vote again, I would still consider this to be excellent.
Are men (brethren) really men or are they human?
- My vote: Excellent.
- Question: The question is succinct, focused on a specific facet of the text, and answerable.
- Accepted/Top Answer: The top answer clearly answers the question. There were some comments about some "what if" situations than were never followed up on as promised, but these were not asked in the question so they did not affect my vote (and they probably are/should be separate questions on the site). The question was not to address the applicability of plural masculine nouns and pronouns to refer to groups of mixed gender, so the fact that the answer only addresses the specific verse in the question did not affect my vote (providing extraneous information that applies to broader circumstances than the question asks about does not necessarily make an answer better).
- Other Answers: There was only one answer to this question.
- Reflection: If I could vote again, I would still consider this to be excellent (and I'm apparently the only one), although I can sympathize with someone who may have given this a lower score.
Who or what are the "no gods" in Galatians 4:8?
- My vote: Excellent.
- Question: The question is succinct, focused on a specific facet of the text, and answerable. It makes claims about the audience of the text with no supporting evidence (which the accepted answer demonstrates to be false), but I do not expect questions to always get things right (if they already knew the answer they shouldn't be asking in the first place).
- Accepted/Top Answer: The accepted answer clearly answers the question and corrects the false claims in the question. However, after looking at it again, I noticed that it does not provide any sources for its assertions. I'll elaborate on that in my reflection on this vote.
- Other Answers: There was only one answer to this question.
- Reflection: If I could vote again, I would have only marked this as satisfactory. After reflecting, I concluded that my own biases are the reason I voted excellent on this one: 1) Tim attended the same seminary I did/do, so I trusted his knowledge about the textual background; 2) Because of my previous studies, I can personally verify a majority of the claims he made about the audience of Galatians in his answer that are not clear solely from the text, but he did not provide any sources so that others can do the same; and 3) I agree with his analysis and found it insightful (which are purely subjective judgments that should not have factored heavily into my vote). The answer should have provided sources for claims unsubstantiated by the text itself. At the same time, Tim did a great job arguing from the text for many of his points, he defended his response thoroughly in the comments, and the question was marked as accepted. Therefore I would still consider it a satisfactory answer.
Was 1 John an unfinished letter?
- My vote: Excellent.
- Question: The question is succinct, focused on an issue clearly reasoned from the text, and answerable.
- Accepted/Top Answer: The accepted answer is detailed and shows its work by logically exegeting the text. When I hurriedly read through it while voting in the site evaluation, it appeared to answer the question. On second glance, I realize that may not be the case (more on that in my reflection).
- Other Answers: There was only one answer to this question.
- Reflection: If I could vote again, I would have marked this as needing improvement. I must not have read the comments on this one during the site evaluation, because there is some crucial information in Matt's comment that should have been in the answer itself in more detail. Not to mention, Jon explicitly points out that this answer doesn't quite answer the question.
Overall, I probably need to slow down and spend more time on site evaluations. I tend to be more gracious than I am when normally voting for answers, because I figure that better site evaluations look better and probably help the site get closer to graduating from beta. This really isn't the right attitude, though. It may actually be more harmful to the site if I am too gracious in site evaluations, as it may graduate before it is mature enough to do so - and poor answers may stand that really need to be improved. This lowers the site quality and thus its usefulness. I apologize for not being more thorough and critical in my voting. I let the community down. I won't make that mistake again when the next site evaluation occurs.
Also, feel free to give me feedback (positive or negative) on my voting standards. Am I not evaluating these properly? How could I improve?
