Timeline for Should the rep requirement for creating tags on Server Fault be raised?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2020 at 10:00 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:14 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:12 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.superuser.com/ with https://meta.superuser.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 10, 2015 at 13:50 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | I suppose it's too late now, and perhaps this was the point, but I'd been using that tag as a group of questions that needed review and action, and at least one normal user had been using it to mine flags (VTC), since it was primarily admin panel questions, with a significant minority of other atrocious, unsalvagable tags. Oh well. | |
| Apr 9, 2015 at 22:39 | history | edited | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 396 characters in body
|
| Feb 26, 2015 at 8:47 | comment | added | Reaces |
@Shog9 I don't think I fully understand. As the re-tagging and tag-cleanup efforts in part caused this request, wouldn't it be best to review the situation before the clean-up? As HopelessN00b indicated that a possible reason for the bad tags he's cleaning up is the lower rep threshold required to create them. It would be kind of ironic that the cleanup efforts end up with a picture of only good tags from low rep users. While data from before december would clearly show the hundreds of garbage tags with only a handful of questions that he cleaned up since.
|
|
| Feb 25, 2015 at 16:52 | comment | added | Shog9 | Even if I did that, @Reaces, it still wouldn't give an accurate picture. Although he did it in a profoundly odd way, Hopeless was performing some much-needed cleanup - a good number of the tags that existed two weeks ago probably shouldn't have. The problem is, right now we don't know which ones were needed and which ones weren't - once we've sorted through the 8K or so questions that currently have NO valid tags and given them valid tags (creating new ones as needed) then we'll have a better picture (unfortunately, one not connected to the data that previously existed). | |
| Feb 25, 2015 at 8:52 | comment | added | Reaces | Would it be possible to look at older statistics? What I mean is, because of the fairly recent start of the off-topic tag, a database backup from 2 months ago would allow for you to get valid statistics without the skewed / tainted results. | |
| Feb 25, 2015 at 3:28 | comment | added | HopelessN00b Mod | I've sliced it down from 10.6k to... the 9.8k it's at now in less than a week, so it'll be gone or reduced to a smaller collection of no-valid-tag, but historically-significant questions in... well, a few months or so, given current rates. | |
| Feb 25, 2015 at 3:19 | history | answered | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |