Timeline for Proposed change to Server Fault guidelines
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
41 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:18 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Dec 17, 2014 at 23:21 | comment | added | noam | ...i guess the trick would be excluding enough of the 'etc' ...but i'm guessing the community does not want to exclude the autistic-yet-on-the-ball sysadmin whose employer just happens to be non-commercial? present company excluded, of course ;) | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 18:24 | comment | added | noam | @ShaneMadden in the same vein as your Microsoft reply to 200_success, I wonder about the word "business". It fits as "a person's regular occupation, profession, or trade" but in context implies "the practice of making one's living by engaging in commerce", and that seems like less of a fit. Alternatives: "professional", "enterprise", "large", "business-scale" ...thinking here about gov't, large non-profit, etc. | |
| Dec 10, 2014 at 21:34 | comment | added | Jim B | I love the direction this change goes in. It seems to certainly keep in the spirit of Stackoverflow where any question is welcome as long as it's relevant to programming. | |
| Dec 10, 2014 at 17:42 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | @200_success By that reasoning, we ban most questions about Microsoft products. I don't think that's a terribly productive direction to go in. | |
| Dec 10, 2014 at 15:20 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/ServerFault/status/542700498265325568 | ||
| Dec 10, 2014 at 8:33 | comment | added | 200_success | Why prohibit questions about how to use a service provider's user interface, but allow questions about how to use a software product's user interface (especially if it's a proprietary software product)? It seems like such a fine and arbitrary distinction. | |
| Dec 10, 2014 at 2:19 | history | edited | Shane MaddenStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 77 characters in body
|
| Dec 10, 2014 at 0:38 | comment | added | HopelessN00b Mod | @ShaneMadden works for me. | |
| Dec 10, 2014 at 0:31 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod |
@HopelessN00b I'm thinking we're getting close to too many points in the "not about" section, but I agree that this is probably where we want that documented instead of in some separate meta question. working with a service provider's management panel, such as cPanel sound like a good bullet for the not about section? Possibly with a parenthesized "go to webmasters" like it has for SU?
|
|
| Dec 10, 2014 at 0:09 | comment | added | HopelessN00b Mod |
I like it, but having seen no less than 6 webpanel questions in the last 3 hours, think that we ought to address that as well. Something like and is not about: your crappy webpanel you use instead of learning your operating system, but possibly nicer and less blunt.
|
|
| Dec 9, 2014 at 20:02 | history | edited | Shane MaddenStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Dec 9, 2014 at 20:02 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | @TheCleaner I love it. Though I think I want to leave "IT" expanded, as the acronym doesn't buy us many pixels and might remove some clarity for non-native English speakers. | |
| Dec 9, 2014 at 19:33 | comment | added | TheCleaner | I didn't read all the answers or comments...but why not do something like Server Fault is for questions about managing IT systems in a business environment. - it's simple and takes out extraneous wording. We know it's a site. We know there will be answers with the questions. We know IT is short for information technology. And adding "in a business environment" automatically excludes consumer/home and sets the appropriate scope IMO. Thoughts? | |
| Dec 6, 2014 at 20:21 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | @200_success The idea of that is to get a way to close questions that are variants on "I dropped my database and have no backups, halp" or "I'm using a six year old version of Ubuntu due to neglect and something's broken", and to not use it to close good, legitimate questions about environments using ancient hardware and software. See the discussion between me and two of our mods here for context - I'd like to get some better wording on it if you have any ideas! | |
| Dec 6, 2014 at 1:49 | comment | added | 200_success | The off-topic reason proposed in Rev 4 introduces a new requirement — one that could prevent professional IT workers from asking legitimate questions. Unsupported equipment and software is now off-topic?! In real life, sysadmins do have to seek advice on legacy crap, due to budget or business reasons. Besides, if everyone had platinum support contracts, the question wouldn't have needed to be asked on Server Fault in the first place. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 23:25 | history | edited | Shane MaddenStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 592 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2014 at 23:17 | history | edited | Shane MaddenStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 32 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2014 at 22:46 | comment | added | user9517 | That discussion is separate to this. This is a proposal that for better or worse is not garnering community support | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 22:40 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | @Iain You really need to know what happened? Okay, then: I linked this comment to the community team's chat room, which presumably prompted 2 or 3 of them to vote. But I'm pretty sure I don't have enough staff to pump 59 upvotes onto meta.serverfault.com/questions/6701 - so, again, I think you're projecting your opinion onto the community at large - 7 or 8 downvotes is not the entire community. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 22:33 | comment | added | user9517 | The only way to gauge community support is voting. Until I pointed out you where not gaining community support the voting here was +9/-8 which is not great. Within moments of me making that comment the +jumped somewhat. It's kind of obvious what you did tsk tsk. The community gets what it votes for ! | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 22:31 | answer | added | Michael HamptonMod | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 22:24 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | @Iain Just because you and some other extremely vocal members of the community don't support it doesn't mean that the entire community doesn't support it. Seriously, if you are as fed up with this community as you seem to be, please take a break. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 22:20 | comment | added | user9517 | An interesting bump in support - have you recruited the folks in the office now tsk tsk ? | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 22:11 | comment | added | user9517 | Well you should consider this proposal lost then. You don't have significant community support for it which is historically a requirement for change like this. Back to the drawing board or just impose it. The people who need to read it won't it'll be just more wasted effort. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 22:06 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod |
@Iain That's been discussed at great length already, see the paragraph that starts with This isn’t going to directly address the volume of meta.serverfault.com/questions/6701
|
|
| Dec 5, 2014 at 21:57 | comment | added | user9517 | To be honest, the way the voting is going I think this is a lost cause, the community is certainly not behind it. Perhaps you need to state succinctly what what you believe the problem is and how this (or any change) will solve it. How will this improve quality ? | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 21:26 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | @voretaq7 Hey, I put notes on that one that I wanted it rephrased for a reason. Crowdsourcing! ;) | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 17:45 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | I think we might want to include some kind of "Hey don't forget to ask your vendor first!" tip in here - particularly around the Stuff-as-a-Service bits. That might head off the "Help me set up my GoDaddy Shared Hosting!" crowd. (Coming up with good wording for that is left as an exercise for the raving lunatic who decided to touch the help center again. If you're not a raving lunatic yet you will be by the time you're done! :-) | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 17:26 | answer | added | voretaq7Mod | timeline score: 10 | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 16:35 | answer | added | 200_success | timeline score: 9 | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 11:06 | answer | added | MadHatter | timeline score: 13 | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 10:01 | answer | added | HBruijn | timeline score: 12 | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 0:40 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | @MichaelHampton Yeah, I really want better wording for that bit.. I'll give it some more thought, I bet we can figure something better out. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 0:38 | comment | added | Michael Hampton Mod | "working with services hosting or enabling your information technology" is going to be the most difficult part; it doesn't really exclude end users of, e.g. shared web hosting or similar services. Aside from this, I like it. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 0:36 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | Ahh, gotcha. I think it's shorter overall, but I'm definitely in support of trimming it further - the more direct it is, the better the chance that a drive-by user might read and understand it. But yes, I should clarify, I was going for both the language changes and trying to make it a simpler/clearer read. This comes at a cost of losing a bit of the granularity, granted, but that's stuff that we can cover elsewhere to keep it simple in the thing we want everyone to really read. Definitely open to suggestions and critique on those points, though! | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 0:31 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | Meant "new version". Fixed. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 0:14 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | @ChrisS I think "consumer" targets for "home" pretty well, and might even be closer aligned with what we want.. someone's linksys at a small business might be better off at SU anyway (and someone's enterprise gear in their basement might be a better question than much of the professional stuff we see). Not sure you mean on the "new section" - do you mean the "not about" section? The one above is a bit shorter than what we have currently. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 0:06 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | It looks like you were also trying to remove the word "home" from the not about section (also, "SU" wasn't mentioned, but was linked there). I'm not sure I agree with that, but I certainly don't care for the way the new version is worded (more words, lost the developer section, less concise). Similarly you "simplified" other not about parts and lost meaning. We could do with condensing some of that, but I'm not crazy about how much you're hacking out after offering "removal of subjective language" as the reasoning (ie, you're changing a lot, not just making it less subjective). | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 0:02 | history | edited | Shane MaddenStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Dec 4, 2014 at 23:52 | history | asked | Shane MaddenStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |