Timeline for Should "on topic" be narrowed down on SF?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:14 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/
|
|
| Sep 1, 2012 at 20:18 | comment | added | Nils | The statistics seem to say that my assumption is wrong here. So let`s get back to "off topic" - since tightening the "on topic" is out of question for at least three moderators here - I take your answer as "You may flag questions with non-professional background, that fit into other sites as off-topic and name the site it should be moved to. The moderators will be happy to do so (even for closed questions)." right? | |
| Aug 31, 2012 at 20:49 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | Not sure about a time-to-answer number, but SF only gets about 130 questions/day, and 83% of what we have has at least one upvoted answer (stackexchange.com/sites/#traffic) -- Esoteric questions (or bad ones that slip past the usual close voters) tend to languish though. | |
| Aug 31, 2012 at 20:37 | comment | added | Nils | Is there a statistic across all sites for the current time to answer? My guess is that this time is pretty bad on SF, because many people just don`t see the question (in time). | |
| Aug 30, 2012 at 22:43 | history | answered | voretaq7Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |