Timeline for Let us (continue to) close old, off-topic questions about web hosting control panels
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/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.serverfault.com/ with https://meta.serverfault.com/
|
|
| May 12, 2015 at 6:29 | comment | added | kasperd | @Braiam There are never that many reviews in the queue. I haven't even seen it reach 100. | |
| May 11, 2015 at 19:41 | comment | added | Braiam | @kasperd the allotted amount of reviews is elastic, if there are more than 1k reviews you have 40 reviews per day, less than that only 20. | |
| Apr 21, 2015 at 17:44 | vote | accept | Michael Hampton | ||
| Apr 17, 2015 at 11:22 | comment | added | kasperd | I notice that the number of close votes available has been increased, but I am still only allowed to review 20 questions per day in the close votes queue. Is that intentional? | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 2:55 | comment | added | Katherine Villyard | It is clearly something we've discussed on meta, and one person volunteered that he knew it was no longer on topic. But yes, a baked-in reason would be much nicer. I'm perfectly willing to link to the meta discussion, and like I said, no offense is meant. The questions were on topic when asked. | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 2:25 | comment | added | Shog9 | Take your time; you & the rest of the team can handle this from here. | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 2:14 | comment | added | Michael Hampton Mod | @Shog9 Thanks. I'm waiting for a little more feedback on the close reason first, though. | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 2:09 | comment | added | Shog9 | You got a 5th slot, @MichaelHampton - make it happen! | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 2:06 | history | edited | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 216 characters in body
|
| Apr 17, 2015 at 2:02 | comment | added | Shog9 | This is the #1 reason why I want this to be a baked-in OT reason, @KatherineVillyard. Unless you're willing to sit down & discuss the merits of these questions, notifying folks via comments is just plain rude; if they're clearly off-topic it's best to close quietly and move on. I should add that to this answer... | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 1:39 | comment | added | Katherine Villyard | Also, y'all, I've had a couple of people say, "Why are you commenting on my five year old post?" so you might want to be prepared to answer something like, "We're doing a big web panel cleanup and your question was in the review queue/came up in search/whatever. No offense meant; your question was probably on topic in [year] when you asked it," or whatever. The people I've spoken to have been very nice and understanding about it. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 19:23 | comment | added | Michael Hampton Mod | A custom off-topic reason has been defined and comments on it are welcome. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 1:36 | comment | added | Michael Hampton Mod | Before I go write another meta post to define this custom off-topic reason, can we get the fifth slot for it? As far as I know all four of our existing close reasons are well-used and it may be a problem to remove any of them, even temporarily. (And I expect this cleanup to take 6 to 8 weeks...) | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 1:30 | history | answered | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |