Timeline for Remove "Professional" close-reason
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 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/
|
|
| Dec 7, 2014 at 21:19 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/ServerFault/status/541703465081536516 | ||
| Nov 26, 2014 at 7:39 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | @ChrisS Not bad at all - seems like we can at least give it a shot without it and see how it goes. | |
| Nov 26, 2014 at 4:46 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | Using Shog's "random 40": reopen†, migrated, doesn't have admin†, recommendation, recommendation†, minimal†, minimal†, unclear†, minimal, migrated, unclear†, reopen†, recommendation, recommendation, migrated, minimal, migrate†, reopen†, migrate†, reopen†, migrated, way-off-topic, dupe†, minimal, call vendor†, reopen†, minimal†, minimal†, migrate†, minimal, reopen†, minimal†, reopen†, recommendation, minimal, reopen†, recommendation†, minimal†, minimal†. "†" = Closed for wrong reason - that's 25 of the 40. Exactly 1 could reasonable be "non-professional" of the 18 that were closed as that. | |
| Nov 26, 2014 at 4:13 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | @ShaneMadden I'd have to look at the numbers to be sure, but my gut reaction is that we don't get enough poor questions to justify the close reason. Also, being homework really doesn't make it automatically off-topic, and I've seen maybe a dozen of them in my 4 years. | |
| Nov 25, 2014 at 21:43 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | My thinking is that we could use a replacement close reason that drops the "professional" wording, but still keeps the gist of "uhh, you're way out of scope here", which communicates clearly that the question should not be re-asked here even if it's improved in ways it would need to be improved for it to be good enough to migrate. For instance, blatant homework questions, or a poorly asked question which, when cleaned up, would belong on SU. I think we get enough of those that it'd be a headache to "Other" for all of them. | |
| Nov 25, 2014 at 14:46 | comment | added | Katherine Villyard | Thanks, @ChrisS. That makes a lot of sense. | |
| Nov 25, 2014 at 14:07 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | @KatherineVillyard Edited Q, but wanted to post a comment to the same effect. Nobody is proposing changing the scope of the site, just the subjective wording. This proposal similarly does not intend to change either the wording or the actual scope of the site, it is merely a reaction to a distinct problem. The problem here is this close reason should almost never be used, but is the close reason 43% of the time, more than any other, and almost more than all others combined. Additionally, it's very difficult to infer a "correct" understanding of this close reason without reading a wall-o-text. | |
| Nov 24, 2014 at 18:07 | answer | added | Shog9 | timeline score: 11 | |
| Nov 24, 2014 at 15:45 | history | edited | Chris SMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 352 characters in body
|
| Nov 24, 2014 at 14:48 | answer | added | Katherine Villyard | timeline score: 6 | |
| Nov 24, 2014 at 14:20 | comment | added | Katherine Villyard | What @MichaelHampton said, especially since we haven't really, truly, officially decided to change scope, right? (FWIW, I may be "Team Nice" but I like our scope the way it is.) | |
| Nov 24, 2014 at 10:11 | answer | added | HBruijn | timeline score: 9 | |
| Nov 24, 2014 at 9:42 | comment | added | Tim Post Staff | @MichaelHampton Well, you have replacements, those reasons that speak more specifically to the problems that the question has. If those turn out to be less than sufficient, then we probably need to talk about the wording a bit. It's easy for the OP to read the reason, but hard for folks to actually pick one, so the angst falls more on the close voters than anything. A "catch all" reason alleviates this, but only the symptom - if changing this makes you feel that uneasy, we should probably talk about the rest of the reasons and what they might lack. | |
| Nov 24, 2014 at 6:51 | answer | added | Magellan | timeline score: 9 | |
| Nov 24, 2014 at 4:56 | comment | added | Michael Hampton Mod | If the scope is going to change, I think it would be helpful to figure out what exactly the new scope is going to be. I'm not entirely comfortable with getting rid of this close reason without a good replacement. | |
| Nov 24, 2014 at 4:44 | history | asked | Chris SMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |