Timeline for Are country-specific questions too localized?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 26, 2012 at 15:59 | comment | added | Richard Gadsden | Would a question that was about getting a new IP range from ARIN be "too localised" because it didn't address RIPE or APNIC policy? I should hope not, though RIPE/APNIC answers would be acceptable - and should be sought, frankly. | |
| Jun 17, 2012 at 4:20 | comment | added | Wesley | As we get into such an excruciatingly minute focus on individual words and linguistic intent I can't help but wonder if this is what it feels like to be a translator for a ancient, dead language. =) | |
| Jun 17, 2012 at 4:19 | comment | added | Wesley | Then again the "Too Localized" VTC guidance says "...or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet." And yet, every other evidence from the FAQ or meta seem to play down the focus of the need to appeal to the "worldwide audience of the internet" or at least make the raw population of a country a factor in deciding if it's worthwhile or not. | |
| Jun 17, 2012 at 4:18 | comment | added | Wesley | @JohnGardeniers We Merry Cans do tend to be self-centered, but I personally would have been concerned about this topic of country-scope regardless of the original question being from the USA or not. I never felt that the question being on USA standards made it more important than if it had been Japanese (who's wifi standards cut across virtually every other nation's), of some European origin or elsewhere in the world. Japan's 120+ mil people would seem to be a large enough population to make it of use to the site and future visitors. | |
| Jun 17, 2012 at 4:12 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | @WesleyDavid, that inconsistency has always bothered me. I don't care to get into an argument about it but Marks' comments to the question greatly understate the issue as seen by those outside the USA. | |
| Jun 17, 2012 at 4:07 | comment | added | Wesley | @JohnGardeniers I hope we don't go along with this just because Joel says so. Our past actions of closing questions solely based on it being scoped to a single country seem completely at odds with StackExchange's stated intent through FAQs, meta discussions, podcasts, and etc. Just like was our tolerance of product recommendations and chatty "What's your favorite server name!" style discussions for the first year or so. Although, I perceive that we are far less consistent with closing Qs based on geographic region than we were with allowing shopping Qs earlier. | |
| Jun 17, 2012 at 3:58 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | @WesleyDavid, I can't recall ever agreeing with Joel on anything else and I see no reason to start now. I'll go along with majority opinion on this but not if the only reason is because Joel said so. We still have the fact that questions have been closed because they related to only a single country. | |
| Jun 17, 2012 at 2:53 | comment | added | Wesley | I'll cite Joel's meta post again that even singles out the country of Turkey as being within scope. | |
| Jun 17, 2012 at 2:53 | comment | added | Wesley | It's not apparent or even terribly logical that the phrase "only relevant to a small geographic area" includes both city-state Monaco and hulking juggernaut Russia alike. Taking the phrase at face value, and using the total land surface area of the globe, it wouldn't seem that discounting countries is within that phrase's intent. Pulling back and seeing the spirit of ServerFault's community intent expressed in the FAQ and meta posts seems to further the notion that there is a lot of validity to including country-specific issues. (Continued...) | |
| Jun 16, 2012 at 17:32 | comment | added | rnxrx | And perhaps that was incorrect? A question was asked recently about options for local connectivity in Australia for a WAN connection coming from the UK. The question pertained not only to Australia, but to specific market conditions in a specific city in Australia. The question- and answer- were (rightly, IMO) well-rated even though the entire issue pretty much perfectly matches the description you're quoting above. | |
| Jun 16, 2012 at 7:20 | history | answered | John Gardeniers | CC BY-SA 3.0 |