Timeline for closed because the questioner didnt search
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 23, 2015 at 4:40 | comment | added | Jim B | @voretaq7 you know as well as I do that a new users doesn't read the sites documentation,. ten post- they just post. Custom Close is not a bad option either but I suspect that the canned close reason will be "you didn't google" , otherwise it's far simpler to just answer the question. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 4:36 | vote | accept | Jim B | ||
| Sep 22, 2015 at 19:09 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | A "No Research" close reason is just begging to be abused, I'd be afraid to add one. It's pretty clear from all the site's documentation and the time we've spent explaining how to ask a good question that we expect to be AFTER Google in the help-seeking chain though. A "Custom" close and a comment pointing at any of those pages would be my choice if there's no good duplicate target & it's a REALLY lazy question. | |
| Sep 22, 2015 at 9:13 | comment | added | Reaces | @womble It's so unlikely though that we come across a question that is blatantly no research and does not have a duplicate. And if we do want to forward the aims of StackExchange wanting to be a knowledge repository. Then answering something which could be googled but doesn't have a ServerFault answer is just fine. | |
| Sep 22, 2015 at 8:13 | comment | added | womble Mod | @reaces Close-as-dupe, sure. Which close reason would you use for "No research"? None of the existing close reasons scream "use me for no research questions!" to me. | |
| Sep 22, 2015 at 7:17 | comment | added | Reaces | No research is not only a valid close reason, if you can easily find duplicates on server fault itself it's not just no research, it's an easy close as duplicate. | |
| Sep 22, 2015 at 1:06 | comment | added | yagmoth555 Mod | The first comment left was the problem there in my opinion. It seem funny when I read it, but the tone can be badly decoded especially if you are not english. | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 22:55 | comment | added | Jim B | "Whilst SF != SO, I like to think we're trying to build the same sort of thing" and has been argued ad nauseum we are specifically NOT trying to be a repository, we've made it crystal clear we only want a certain type of explicit question. I'm perfectly OK that its closed but we need to be clearer on why. | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 22:41 | comment | added | EEAA Mod | Good points indeed. I still have a hard time with the no apparent research bit, but we'll see how this plays out in the next day or so. If people think it should be re-opened, I'm not going to oppose the community. | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 21:50 | history | answered | wombleMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |