Timeline for Where did all the admins on Server Fault go?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2010 at 18:07 | history | migrated | from meta.stackexchange.com (revisions) | ||
| Jan 6, 2010 at 22:46 | answer | added | Zypher | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jan 6, 2010 at 12:11 | answer | added | Ludwig Weinzierl | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 23, 2009 at 16:12 | answer | added | Doug Luxem | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 23, 2009 at 13:25 | answer | added | Georg | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 23, 2009 at 10:21 | answer | added | Developer Art | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 22, 2009 at 23:02 | comment | added | Ward | It's not a matter of SF-ers feeling like 2nd class, but meta clearly has its own community that's closer to SO, so this just doesn't seem like a good place to discuss SF. | |
| Nov 22, 2009 at 6:42 | answer | added | Ward - Trying CodidactMod | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 16, 2009 at 20:22 | comment | added | pauska | As feared, the discussion drowned. Oh well. | |
| Nov 16, 2009 at 13:17 | comment | added | Sam Cogan | @Voyager and that's where some of the problems come from. Yes SO came first, but having everything focused on SO can make SF and SU users feel like second class citizens sometimes. | |
| Nov 12, 2009 at 22:35 | comment | added | perbert | @David Thornley: Well, First came SO, and the underlaying platform is called the Stack Overflow Engine, so it's fitting that its support/meta site is Meta StackOverflow | |
| Nov 12, 2009 at 22:12 | answer | added | Jeff Atwood | timeline score: 7 | |
| Nov 12, 2009 at 19:19 | answer | added | David Spillett | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 12, 2009 at 19:01 | comment | added | David Thornley | @Sam_Cogan: And the fact that it's named Meta Stack Overflow might not make the SF and SU people feel entirely welcome. | |
| Nov 12, 2009 at 18:46 | answer | added | Aaron | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 12, 2009 at 18:15 | comment | added | DLux | Pauska...I 100% agree with you. Check out the responses to the question squillman linked to. | |
| Nov 12, 2009 at 16:38 | comment | added | squillman | Duplicate: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/26689/… | |
| Nov 12, 2009 at 16:34 | comment | added | pauska | Sam: Thank you, exactly my point. Sadly it didn't help, it got moved to meta now. Edited the post to be community wiki. | |
| Nov 12, 2009 at 16:28 | comment | added | Sam Cogan | Yeah, meta is for all 3 sites, its just there are more SO ones there. I agree that it may get drowned out by other questions, primarily because there aren't alot of significant meta users who are primarily SF users, which is really something that needs to change | |
| Nov 12, 2009 at 16:28 | comment | added | Izzy | Furthermore, this should have been a Community Wiki question | |
| Nov 12, 2009 at 16:27 | answer | added | Sam Cogan | timeline score: 6 | |
| Nov 12, 2009 at 16:26 | comment | added | Izzy | Disagree - this does belong on meta. Meta is for discussion about the trilogy sites. | |
| Nov 12, 2009 at 16:24 | comment | added | pauska | Oh, I see. I weren't aware that it included meta questions for serverfault. Still, I have a gut feeling that the discussion will drown over there.. | |
| Nov 12, 2009 at 16:22 | comment | added | pauska | StackOverflow's meta? Why? I (and probably other admins) don't visit that site much. | |
| Nov 12, 2009 at 16:20 | comment | added | Sam Cogan | This question would be better suited to Meta | |
| Nov 12, 2009 at 16:17 | history | asked | pauska | CC BY-SA 2.5 |