Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with discussion
Search options not deleted
user 100187
The question you're asking is designed to solicit opinions or best-practices on a particular topic, with the goal of reaching community consensus.
1
vote
Should we punish and also close questions with blindingly obvious answers?
All of us seen cases when even mostly obvious questions are hard to find right way of understanding. Say, DHCP server won't assign MACs, but magic word "cluster" may make it a bit unusual for some nov …
- 854