Timeline for Why was this question about Amazon CloudFront put on hold as off-topic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 4, 2016 at 0:08 | comment | added | Skyhawk | Absent this rule, we surely would be deluged with "stealth spam" questions intended to raise the profile of a product, e.g.: {Q: "Does $SNAKE_OIL have $FEATURE to solve $PROBLEM?", A1: "Yes, it has the best $FEATURE ever and it works even better in version 3.6!", A2: "I had so many $PROBLEMs until I discovered $SNAKE_OIL and $FEATURE solved them all!"} | |
| May 2, 2016 at 16:16 | comment | added | Andrew B | @Gustavo Think of it like this: a significant reason why this category of questions is considered off-topic is due to obsolescence factor. Whether or not company X does Y is a product selection question based on services offered, and the answer is a snapshot in time. If company X at a later date decides that Y was too costly and that they should no longer do it, the value of the Q&A becomes flipped around entirely. | |
| May 2, 2016 at 15:22 | vote | accept | Gus | ||
| May 2, 2016 at 15:24 | |||||
| May 2, 2016 at 12:11 | comment | added | Gus | In hindsight, I totally agree that I should've contacted the vendor directly and for that reason I agree I shouldn't have posted it on ServerFault. However, I fail to see how you arrive at the conclusion that it's a "production recommendation", but I'm happy not to continue drawing any more attention to this issue because we all agree that I shouldn't have posted that question... Although for different reasons. | |
| May 2, 2016 at 12:07 | comment | added | HBruijn Mod | I could't have said it better myself. | |
| May 2, 2016 at 11:26 | history | answered | SvenMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |