Timeline for We should bring back the "question must show a minimal understanding" close reason
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 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/
|
|
| Feb 22, 2016 at 1:19 | comment | added | HopelessN00b |
@Wesley I mean to say that there are 5 OT close reasons in the UI. I don't think there's any question as to how quickly a certain someone would yank the diamond of a moderator who used one of those slots for a brutally honest close reason like Your question is bad and you should feel bad. GO AWAY.
|
|
| Feb 16, 2016 at 4:05 | comment | added | Jim B | it's a 2 year old question that was closed with the "must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved." answer when it was around. the "reasonable practices" close answer would have been used today | |
| Feb 12, 2016 at 11:45 | history | edited | Reaces | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Missing word, slight grammar.
|
| Feb 12, 2016 at 3:26 | comment | added | Massimo | See my answer for a possible solution; I'm of course trying to be diplomatic here... feel free to use a more blunt approach if you think it's appropriate ;) | |
| Feb 12, 2016 at 0:59 | comment | added | Wesley |
Personally, I think that if the powers that be at StackExchange would ease up a little on allowable custom-close reasons, the problem would solve itself. There are no limitations that I've ever run into, and I've put in some pretty acidic custom close reasons.
|
|
| Feb 11, 2016 at 23:01 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | @Massimo It's pretty common, actually... they'll @ someone asking why their question got closed/downvoted or what was wrong with it, and then get pissed off and start flaming when they get an answer (even a polite one). Reason #47 I stopped bothering to try to explain my votes, or help people improve. They'd just get pissed off, and as fun as it was snarking back at them, mod flags would get thrown, no-no mod messages would be sent, blah, blah, blah. Too much drama, especially when all too often the answer is that the question is just bad, and that's all there is to say about it. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 22:55 | comment | added | Massimo | Anyway, you are of course right: too much wording is too much open to interpretations, and gives false hopes about revising or discussing a fundamentally flawed question (or, even worse, attacking people who are telling you how much your question sucks, as actually happened in my example). | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 22:50 | comment | added | Massimo | ...hey, that New Testament quote would be really good as a close reason :) | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 22:49 | comment | added | Massimo | That question you linked as an example made me actually cringe. Using Windows XP as a "server" and wanting to upgrade it to Windows 7 without even turning it off because "it's a critical system and lots of people use it"... "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (TM). | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 22:41 | history | answered | HopelessN00b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |