Skip to main content
replaced http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/ with https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

Your specific question regards an issue not often dealt with by system and network administrators. We buy the domain names our companies need, and that's usually that. If someone's squatting on them, we tell the lawyers and they handle it from there. This issue is much more commonly seen by a certain class of webmaster, and so WebmastersWebmasters is a much better fit for the question.

The question then becomes, what to do with the question? We could answer it, migrate it, or close it. Answering it would just create a duplicate question and answer across multiple sites. While this is often useful, sometimes it's better not to have such duplication. Migrating it, in this case, would leave the migrated question closed as a duplicateduplicate on the destination site. Closing it outright, with a pointer to the question on the sister site, was what happened here. Since Webmasters is not on our list of migration targets, actually migrating it would have required a moderator to intervene.

Your specific question regards an issue not often dealt with by system and network administrators. We buy the domain names our companies need, and that's usually that. If someone's squatting on them, we tell the lawyers and they handle it from there. This issue is much more commonly seen by a certain class of webmaster, and so Webmasters is a much better fit for the question.

The question then becomes, what to do with the question? We could answer it, migrate it, or close it. Answering it would just create a duplicate question and answer across multiple sites. While this is often useful, sometimes it's better not to have such duplication. Migrating it, in this case, would leave the migrated question closed as a duplicate on the destination site. Closing it outright, with a pointer to the question on the sister site, was what happened here. Since Webmasters is not on our list of migration targets, actually migrating it would have required a moderator to intervene.

Your specific question regards an issue not often dealt with by system and network administrators. We buy the domain names our companies need, and that's usually that. If someone's squatting on them, we tell the lawyers and they handle it from there. This issue is much more commonly seen by a certain class of webmaster, and so Webmasters is a much better fit for the question.

The question then becomes, what to do with the question? We could answer it, migrate it, or close it. Answering it would just create a duplicate question and answer across multiple sites. While this is often useful, sometimes it's better not to have such duplication. Migrating it, in this case, would leave the migrated question closed as a duplicate on the destination site. Closing it outright, with a pointer to the question on the sister site, was what happened here. Since Webmasters is not on our list of migration targets, actually migrating it would have required a moderator to intervene.

replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/
Source Link

Third, whenever a normal user votes to close a question, it goes into a review queuereview queue where other users can agree or disagree with the close vote. If enough users disagree, the existing close votes will expire away and those users will be unable to vote to close the same question again. And if enough users agree, then the question is closed (or migrated).

On that note, closed questions can also get reopen votes, which go into a reopen review queuereview queue. Questions also go into this queue automatically if they're edited after being closed. So closing a question is not necessarily forever.

Your specific questionYour specific question regards an issue not often dealt with by system and network administrators. We buy the domain names our companies need, and that's usually that. If someone's squatting on them, we tell the lawyers and they handle it from there. This issue is much more commonly seen by a certain class of webmaster, and so Webmasters is a much better fit for the question.

Third, whenever a normal user votes to close a question, it goes into a review queue where other users can agree or disagree with the close vote. If enough users disagree, the existing close votes will expire away and those users will be unable to vote to close the same question again. And if enough users agree, then the question is closed (or migrated).

On that note, closed questions can also get reopen votes, which go into a reopen review queue. Questions also go into this queue automatically if they're edited after being closed. So closing a question is not necessarily forever.

Your specific question regards an issue not often dealt with by system and network administrators. We buy the domain names our companies need, and that's usually that. If someone's squatting on them, we tell the lawyers and they handle it from there. This issue is much more commonly seen by a certain class of webmaster, and so Webmasters is a much better fit for the question.

Third, whenever a normal user votes to close a question, it goes into a review queue where other users can agree or disagree with the close vote. If enough users disagree, the existing close votes will expire away and those users will be unable to vote to close the same question again. And if enough users agree, then the question is closed (or migrated).

On that note, closed questions can also get reopen votes, which go into a reopen review queue. Questions also go into this queue automatically if they're edited after being closed. So closing a question is not necessarily forever.

Your specific question regards an issue not often dealt with by system and network administrators. We buy the domain names our companies need, and that's usually that. If someone's squatting on them, we tell the lawyers and they handle it from there. This issue is much more commonly seen by a certain class of webmaster, and so Webmasters is a much better fit for the question.

replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

Finally, it's my understanding that the Stack Exchange team hasn't been particularly interested in implementing any sort of cross-site search from within individual sites. This has been asked for many times, and rarely or never gets an official response. The only concession to cross-site search has been to implement it on stackexchange.comimplement it on stackexchange.com. (And from what I understand, it's terrible compared to, say, Google.) If you want to pursue this sort of feature, I suggest visiting mSOmSO and perusing the existing questions.

Finally, it's my understanding that the Stack Exchange team hasn't been particularly interested in implementing any sort of cross-site search from within individual sites. This has been asked for many times, and rarely or never gets an official response. The only concession to cross-site search has been to implement it on stackexchange.com. (And from what I understand, it's terrible compared to, say, Google.) If you want to pursue this sort of feature, I suggest visiting mSO and perusing the existing questions.

Finally, it's my understanding that the Stack Exchange team hasn't been particularly interested in implementing any sort of cross-site search from within individual sites. This has been asked for many times, and rarely or never gets an official response. The only concession to cross-site search has been to implement it on stackexchange.com. (And from what I understand, it's terrible compared to, say, Google.) If you want to pursue this sort of feature, I suggest visiting mSO and perusing the existing questions.

replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
Source Link
Loading
You missed one, you stupid bot
Source Link
Michael Hampton Mod
  • 251k
  • 1
  • 55
  • 126
Loading
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
Source Link
Loading
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
Source Link
Loading
added 284 characters in body
Source Link
Michael Hampton
  • 251k
  • 1
  • 55
  • 126
Loading
added 70 characters in body
Source Link
Michael Hampton
  • 251k
  • 1
  • 55
  • 126
Loading
Source Link
Michael Hampton
  • 251k
  • 1
  • 55
  • 126
Loading