Timeline for Why isn't SE, Inc. bothering to *explain* all the changes in close vote reasons?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 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/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.serverfault.com/ with https://meta.serverfault.com/
|
|
| Jul 26, 2013 at 7:03 | comment | added | Ward - Trying Codidact Mod | What about the new ones who popped in? Grace Note and the other guy? Or were they trying to create a new oxymoron - "We're from SE and we're here to help?" | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 6:50 | comment | added | Michael Hampton Mod | Aarthi is no longer with us. We're on our own ... | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 6:42 | comment | added | Ward - Trying Codidact Mod | It's not that I have better ideas in mind, but putting dramatically different close reasons in place without giving at least some guidelines on how they're intended to be used is a mistake. Not everyone who votes to close participated in the discussion of the new reasons (I didn't, obviously), so it would be nice to have something that explains the changes. It seems like a perfect task for... I dunno, maybe a Community Coordinator? | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 6:33 | comment | added | Michael Hampton Mod | @ward SE wouldn't let us use "too stupid to live" as a close reason; that's the best we could do. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears... | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 4:42 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | @Ward I definitely agree about calling some of these "off topic" close reasons being dumb - unfortunately the custom close reasons are all in the "off topic" bucket (I blame developers). Ideally we'd be able to add top-level close reasons, but that would break the 5-items-in-a-list rule | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 4:41 | comment | added | Ward - Trying Codidact Mod | Change again? gahh. I think I'm just gonna stick with deleting the off-topic comment down to "This question appears to be off-topic" | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 4:39 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | I envision the "minimal understanding" close reason as really a better fit for "You're not the sysadmin" sort of situations (end users/home users seeking Level 1 Support), where "Unclear what you're asking" is for someone who is at (least supposed to be) a sysadmin but just wrote an awful question. -- Of course that leaves it overlapping with the "relevant to professional system administration" close reason to some extent. It's entirely possible (in fact probable) that these reasons will change again. | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 4:38 | comment | added | Ward - Trying Codidact Mod | Sorry, I'm limited by rushing, and by the formatting and length limits of comments. It doesn't make sense to call that an "Off-Topic" close reason because the topicality is orthogonal to whether the person understands what they're doing/asking. It also doesn't make sense to have an off-topic close reason that is essentially the same as another close reason. | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 4:24 | comment | added | Falcon Momot | It doesn't, but they are likely to coincide. | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 4:22 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | I'm not sure how you could equate demonstrating a "minimal understanding of the problem" with a question that "doesn't make sense". Could you explain that? | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 4:18 | comment | added | Falcon Momot | Yes, I am not saying they are any good. | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 4:05 | comment | added | Ward - Trying Codidact Mod | But the first new off-topic reason "Questions must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved. ..." doesn't make sense - it can apply to a 100% perfectly on-topic question and it's largely a duplicate of "unclear what you're asking" | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 3:59 | history | answered | Falcon Momot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |