Timeline for Should Server Fault be removed from Stack Overflow's migration list?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2012 at 0:40 | comment | added | gparent | What people "need" to do is go with what works. Which, right now, is accepting good content and deleting bad content. | |
| Nov 23, 2012 at 8:11 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | You may not be able to see it working long term but most of us do. In fact we've already got it to the point where it's working better than ever. Some of us are not likely to let go of this tiger's tail until the beast has been fully domesticated. We have a lot invested in the site and SF is unlike anything else out there. | |
| Nov 22, 2012 at 16:48 | comment | added | Roger Heathcote | OK I get where you're coming from - Laisse Faire is off the menu with you guys - point taken. Given that, and as I said in my original post, you need to re-examine your position as part of a low-friction federated network. Without some friction new users and other site mods are always going to send you inappropriate stuff. I can't see it working long term if you're the only "professional" site in an ecosystem of non-professional sites. | |
| Nov 22, 2012 at 11:20 | comment | added | Rob Moir | The questions may not be "so different" but the philosophy driving the Stack Exchange family of sites is different to that of a forum, and the philosophy driving Server Fault is slightly different again to many of the other Stack Exchange sites (the whole 'professional' thing). I appreciate you might not agree with that, or not understand why we keep going back to it, but it's still central to the whole point. And while I'd agree that the best answer to a bad question is to improve it (and we could do better at that here), sometimes you also have to accept that a situation is beyond salvage. | |
| Nov 22, 2012 at 10:12 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | Sorry but everything you've said so far clearly indicates that you have absolutely no understanding of how SE sites operate and SF specifically. Rather than spouting a bunch of nonsense perhaps you should sit back and take notice of how the site does operate and learn why this topic is such a problem for us. To save you a little time I'll put it in a nutshell for you: Bad content attracts bad content and we don't want bad content. | |
| Nov 22, 2012 at 4:13 | comment | added | Roger Heathcote | @RobM Anyway, sorry I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I just don't understand why can't you just hide the cruft? You have the ratings. How many people even see those low rated posts? If lots of people would currently see them then shouldn't something be done about that? Slashdot and Youtube hide comments that get a lot of downvotes, if that's not happening here then I think you're missing a trick. | |
| Nov 22, 2012 at 3:58 | comment | added | Roger Heathcote | @RobM The thread or question thing is a bit of a false dichotomy - the questions on here aren't so different in form from forum or usenet topics. Just cause a thread is marked as answered doesn't mean the best answer has been submitted yet. Also "bad questions are discouraged because they produce bad answers"? Surely the answer to a bad question should be a polite explanation of why it is a bad question and/or a good faith attempt to decode the confusion and help anyway - neither of those are bad things are they? | |
| Nov 21, 2012 at 20:20 | comment | added | Rob Moir | I'd just like to add that no-one thinks that SF is for "talented/experienced/hardcore sysadmins". It's for professionals. Work as a sysadmin? Got a question about a system you work with? Come on in! First day on the job or 1000th day on the job, you're still welcome. We care about the quality of people's questions, not the length of their stereotypical unix admin beard. | |
| Nov 21, 2012 at 20:10 | comment | added | Rob Moir | @technicalbloke y'see when you talk about "threads", that's the problem right there. That sounds like forum terminology, and the stack exchange sites are not forums. They're question and answer sites. Therefore, we're not interested in "epic threads", just good questions and good answers. Good questions are desirable because they encourage good answers and bad questions are discouraged because they produce bad answers. Good questions and answers encourage good people to participate. That's what we want. | |
| Nov 21, 2012 at 19:57 | comment | added | Roger Heathcote | @MDMarra Yep, can't see the point of it. Digital resources are cheap, volunteer time is finite. I've never seen the point closing threads that aren't being heavily spammed. There are some epic threads on other sites that are still useful today even though all the original participants have left and the technology has moved on. Some issues are pertinent for years. At best, preventing people adding and updating those threads creates a pointless fragmentation of knowledge, at worst people don't contribute at all as recreating even a fraction of that context is too much effort to do elsewhere. | |
| Nov 21, 2012 at 19:46 | comment | added | user9517 Mod | Broken Windows Syndrome | |
| Nov 21, 2012 at 14:28 | comment | added | MDMarra | Off-topic questions lead to more off-topic questions as people use the previous ones to justify their own. The same goes for bad questions. To attract experts in a field, you need a very well kept community. With what you're proposing, we should just do away with closing and deleting question altogether. | |
| Nov 21, 2012 at 14:18 | history | answered | Roger Heathcote | CC BY-SA 3.0 |