Timeline for Suggestion for Unanswered Questions: Tab for listing oldest
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.serverfault.com/ with https://meta.serverfault.com/
|
|
| Jan 21, 2012 at 10:19 | answer | added | Jeff Atwood | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 19, 2011 at 14:00 | comment | added | Ben Campbell | "it's not overly unusual for questions to get answered 6 months after being posted" - this is exactly what i was originally addressing with my question/suggestion: additional methods of finding those unanswered questions more easily. thanks! | |
| Oct 19, 2011 at 11:06 | comment | added | Bart De Vos | I think there is a more pressing problem. A lot of answered/solved questions are not marked as "Solved". Example: Windows 7 joining OS X Server domain The list would be flooded with questions that are unclear and the OP will not revisit or solved questions that aren't marked as such. Isn't there a way we could mark questions as solved? | |
| Oct 19, 2011 at 11:04 | comment | added | Bart De Vos | @JohnGardeniers: Questions are already being deleted. See: meta.serverfault.com/questions/1210/… | |
| Oct 19, 2011 at 0:05 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | @Ben, it's not overly unusual for questions to get answered 6 months after being posted. Not all issues are urgent. Some are more in the "I would like" rather than the "I need" category. I have some questions that have had no activity for longer than that which are still waiting for a solution. Admittedly they do have some answers and/or comments but even if they didn't, the question is as valid today as when I posted it. | |
| Oct 18, 2011 at 21:11 | comment | added | Ben Campbell | I would pick a time frame... something in the rules for posting questions that is clearly defined. I would think that 3 solid months of no answers, comments or additional information provided means they really don't care about getting the question answered. I don't know of many technical issues pressing enough to post on here that I could wait 3 months to figure out. Why 3 months? I think one month is too short and I think 6 months is too long due to my experience working in IT and how quickly the rules change. What do you think? (thanks for your comment by the way.) | |
| Oct 18, 2011 at 20:48 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | @Ben, I tend to agree that there is probably no need to keep those old questions around but what criteria should be used to cull them without causing undue collateral damage? | |
| Oct 18, 2011 at 20:47 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | I'd be interested to see how many people support this idea but at this stage I seriously doubt there will be enough to warrant the coding changes that would be required. This question also probably belongs more on MSO but we all know what happens to our questions over there. | |
| Oct 18, 2011 at 15:12 | comment | added | Ben Campbell | using that logic, why bother keeping them around? if you're going to negate the older questions (for whatever reason - unclear, no longer exists, deprecation, etc.) why bother at all? Personally, I find that a bit defeatist. | |
| Oct 18, 2011 at 15:03 | comment | added | Chris S | The "big problem" with old Questions is that the circumstances of the situation are commonly unclear and the Questioner is highly unlikely to respond to calls for clarification. Also it's quite common that the problem no longer exists for wholly unrelated reasons (no longer using the system, no longer a requirement, etc). | |
| Oct 18, 2011 at 14:25 | history | asked | Ben Campbell | CC BY-SA 3.0 |