Timeline for Proposed new language for FAQ
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 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 1, 2013 at 17:33 | comment | added | Rob Moir | *Off-topic questions still have SEO juice in them. SF (and maybe all of SE) has to make a decision to not prostitute the mission for the sake of the traffic off-topic Q's can generate. * -- absolutely. On at least one occasion I can think of, this site closed a question and it was re-opened by one of then (at the time) owners of Stack Exchange. Not everything you see here and dislike about ServerFault is actually the fault of this particular site itself or its regulars. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 16:15 | comment | added | martin's | Off-topic questions still have SEO juice in them. SF (and maybe all of SE) has to make a decision to not prostitute the mission for the sake of the traffic off-topic Q's can generate. I have seen a "town elder" make exactly that argument here on meta. To paraphrase: let's keep closed questions because they generate traffic. In my opinion, that's a horrible double standard that sends the wrong message. Removing them is the right thing to do. At the very least remove the answers and comments so there's no real utility to them. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 16:11 | comment | added | martin's | With regards to the deletion of off-topic posts. The existence of questions with answers on off-topic subjects presents a mixed message. One is that, hey, I can post this here and maybe I'll have someone sneak-in an answer before it is closed. The wrong poster gets the benefit, other wrong posters see it when they visit and do the same. If I search for VMWARE or XAMPP and there's nothing. Or, even better, I get a message specifically stating that these areas are off-topic here, as a good-guy new-comer I'd refrain from posting. I think what you want is to attract more good guys. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 16:07 | comment | added | martin's | It looks like your scenarios for not wanting to implement such things as auto-magic banned-topic tags and the kind of FAQ language I am proposing is based on bad citizens rather than potentially good citizens. You have to place yourself in the shoes of an intelligent and thoughtful person who actually wants to become a part of this community. They would respond to such messages and, I would also argue, they would read more than five bullet-points. You actually want to guide newcomers who care into good citizenship. The creeps will always ignore guidelines, no matter well crafted they might be. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 16:04 | comment | added | martin's | The scenario is as follows: I type a new question. When I am done I go to tag it. I type a number of tags. One, let's say it's "VMWARE" or "XAMPP" happens to be on this special list of banned topics. A small modal message appears informing me that such topics are off-limits here and strongly suggests I review the FAQ or some other document. As a thoughtful user I would not just slap another random tag on the question and move on. I would research the issue and, more than likely, choose not to post it here. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 15:58 | comment | added | martin's | Thanks for an informative answer. I have launched and run a couple of community sites for professionals in the past. I know how tough of a job it can be to deal with the crud that can come in. It can be a tedious and thankless job. I get it. The perspective I am going to ask you to have when considering FAQ language and tag bans isn't that of the kind of user who is compelled to ignore them but that of a new visitor who actually wants to become part of the community is is respectful of such rules. I'll use myself as an example with a hypothetical scenario: | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 14:40 | history | answered | sysadmin1138Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |