Timeline for Proposed change to Server Fault guidelines
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 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/
|
|
| Dec 15, 2014 at 23:36 | comment | added | user2284570 | @ShaneMadden : As I said. This is an example about the fact that removing the professional requirement will just make professionals leave the site. Can you put a tag:feature-request so peoples would votes more. Currently this seems to looks like a change Stack Exchange impose to the community. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 22:26 | comment | added | MadHatter | @ShaneMadden, I fear your last statement is unhelpfully bland. Everyone I know on SF thinks that bad questions should be closed, poor-but-fixable ones fixed, and good ones answered; that isn't what divides us. What divides us is which questions are bad, which are poor, and which are good. I'm off to bed, but if I have time over the next couple of days I'll try to put together an alternative formulation of words. But I must make it clear that it will be an attempt to clarify that the professionalism requirement applies to questions not people, and not an attempt to abolish it. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 22:03 | comment | added | user9517 | I agree @MadHatter I can't see how this will improve quality at all. I think it might help if people stopped conflating scope and audience. Once you separate the two things (at least to me) become clearer. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 22:03 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | @MadHatter I'm absolutely open to better wording than what's in the post. I think the bad questions that we get come from people who aren't reading this stuff anyway, and I think we'll have no problem whatsoever determining what the bad questions are and closing them. If someone's asking a bad question that would be on-topic if asked in a better way, we should be sending them the signal that they need to improve their question, not to leave forever because they aren't professional enough for us. I'm really not seeing how that one change will lower the quality bar. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 21:55 | comment | added | MadHatter | @ShaneMadden I accept that you don't want to lower the bar. But I think there's an important requirement for questions here - that they should be professional - which is sometimes misunderstood as applying to questioners; I wouldn't mind seeing the requirement clarified, but you are, without question, trying to remove it. In replacing it with as wishy-washy a requirement as "managing information technology systems", though you may not intend to lower the bar, it is my belief that you absolutely will. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 21:50 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | @MadHatter I think we're talking past each other a little bit - I want to make sure that the questions that we get are good questions for problems that sysadmins have - but instead of targeting "should this person be on this site", a much better approach is to look at the quality and topicality of the question. Nowhere am I saying that we should lower our quality bar, which seems to be what you think I'm trying to do. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 20:44 | comment | added | MadHatter | @HopelessN00b Fair enough! Oh, and thanks, voretaq7. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 20:34 | comment | added | HopelessN00b Mod | @MadHatter I think I've used it more often as a custom reason since it went away than I did for the whole last month when it was in the drop-down. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 17:02 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | I've added a link above to "What is a Professional Capacity?". Other posts on this subject worth reading include "Why 'professional capacity'?" and this older one from 2011. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 17:00 | history | edited | voretaq7Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Link to canonical "What is a Professional Capacity" post
|
| Dec 5, 2014 at 13:51 | comment | added | MadHatter | Really? Look at how quickly, and with how little discussion, the "minimal understanding" close reason disappeared. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 13:34 | comment | added | HopelessN00b Mod | Well, the sliver lining would be that the window-lickers who ask crappy questions because they don't bother to read anything about Server Fault won't read this either, so... I don't see much coming of this either way. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 12:50 | history | edited | MadHatter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 217 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2014 at 12:08 | comment | added | user9517 | I wish I could upvote this more. Without some way of weeding out less interesting posts playing the SF game just becomes tedious and janitorial for everyone concerned. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 11:06 | history | answered | MadHatter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |