Cleaning up old content is important for the longevity of the site and for the long-tail questions, but getting new content answered is more important.
Which is why we generally suggest doing 4-5 questions at a time and taking a break, as you've stated you've been doing. This gives the chance for new questions to still be seen, and stops the flooding of the ...
There's nothing new in any of those three answers, and so I've cleaned them up.
It appears that one individual decided to post his answer to the question, which brought it back to the front page. Most people who have been around a while can recognize an old question immediately, but the clues aren't always obvious to new users, which is the most likely ...
If you're gonna do this, let's do it right:
Define a custom off-topic reason. Doesn't have to be a permanent addition, but for the purpose of this cleanup swapping one in means less tedious clicking for the folks closing. More importantly, it means we're not notifying hundreds of people while conducting this campaign: kinda rude to drag folks back only to ...
Generally speaking I'm against migrating anything > 90 days old, unless it's been discussed with the other site & they want it.
I'm more against migrating old stuff with accepted answers -- there is little to no benefit for the receiving site here IMHO.
There are lots of off-topic questions in our history - These should probably be closed, and possibly ...
I remember that question.
The worst part of that particular question that you referenced was that the person who asked it refused to describe why he wanted to do what he was doing.
That's a problem, because it indicates the user has probably fallen into the XY problem trap.
There may actually be reasons why this particular solution might seem to be right, ...
I'm a little confused as to why we need to spend time retroactively closing these questions. I agree that they are now OT in most cases (not all- but certainly most), and new questions should be closed. What do we get from looking fir them specifically?
The only general comment I have on editing old posts is that if all you're doing is removing "thanks" or capitalizing "I" in one or two spots you should really look at the post critically.
Does the edit substantially improve the clarity of the post?
Was the signature or the poor grammar/syntax really that terrible to look at?
If the answer to either ...
Because you keep asking it.
If it's poorly worded, and doesn't have an answer you like, you have no one to blame but yourself for that. Fix your old question and get it reopened; don't ask the same thing in a new question.
You could probably benefit from reading the thread here on how to ask better questions, as well as using the search function before ...
Adding my additional requirement (non-permanent solution) would sort of change the question itself.
Yes, yes it would. In fact, that would make your question a different question, which should be asked separately.
It is, however, a related question, so your new question should also link to the existing question, along with a clear statement that the ...
That's probably not the best example as it does at least say what the technology is that the OP should be using. You would hope that any reasonable sysadmin would at least be able to research the technology from there. They could even search SF and find 1500+ references.
If you come across truly link only answers then you have some options I guess,
Nope! The SE robot does a few things with these.
Questions with no upvoted answers are bumped to the front page in pairs at random. I believe two questions are picked every four hours. This is intended, in case anyone happens to have an answer.
I believe there is a cleanup process that deletes these after a time if the question also has a non-positive ...
We're dealing with a similar problem on Super User.
When I started a clean-up, I reserved destruction only for answers that were
scored at zero or below,
not the accepted answer,
written by users unlikely to come back,
not the only answer, and
obviously lacking effort.
In general, we're trying to avoid removing something that someone found helpful. For ...
Would it be legitimate to post a "follow-up"?
Yes, if you have a problem that is similar to a crap Question, ask a new question.
If yes: How can i make sure to not get closed as duplicate?
Capitalize "I" and reference the previous Question (mention explicitly why your question is different too)
There is a bit of a disconnect between how ServerFault handles question-migration and how the rest of the SE network handles it.
We're a bunch of helpful people, and are quite aware that there is a significant amount of overlap between ServerFault and several other sites so we know we get a good number of well meaning if poorly placed questions. Expecting ...
When something pops up on the front page that I don't believe belongs on SF now I vote accordingly. I really don't care whether or not is was ever appropriate for SF in the past. Further, although the rules have changed somewhat, many of the old posts I vote to close have not been on topic in the 2+ years I've been on SF and should have been killed off when ...
No specific action is required. Old questions don't need closing simply because they are old and/or outdated.
All posts are dated and people sufficiently literate to use a search engine to find an older Q&A should be capable of reading the date that accompanies every post even when a specific release/version number is omitted.
Also people may even ...
I don't believe that we must do anything about such a question if it is on topic for ServerFault. Someone could still answer this (even if it is unlikely) and someone found it worthwile enough to upvote or else the post would have been deleted by now.
Per the link meta.so Journeyman Geek mentioned, the easiest way to get these removed is to vote the question below 0. It'll get reaped within a week. No need to vote-to-close them and wait for a consensus. You can do it yourself through the power of the mere vote-button.
Of course, this doesn't apply to questions-with-answers. Who knows, maybe that answer ...
I don't see what the conflicting advice is here. It was me that suggested you do 4 or 5 at a time so that you don't flood the front page with edits (as I knew you'd go at it with a certain gusto)
@HopelessN00b just be aware that they all go past the front page and that they can drown out new questions so doing them in batches is preferable
So if you're ...
I'm one of those that requested you slow down just a little. I only ever see the default first page of questions and perhaps it's a timezone thing but over the last few days or whatever, I'm seeing more edited old crap than new questions. Sure I could change my settings but the reality is that the settings I'm using are those used by the very vast majority ...
Old off-topic questions should be pilloried, smeared with their own shame and then locked with a warning to future interlopers.
We don't want the term "ServerFault doesn't migrate crap" to be spoken of with bitter sarcasm like the same phrase is known to be used for a certain other member of the StackExchange family.
I'm also going to try to sum up, because there are too many different ideas here for me to pick just one other answer to agree with.
New questions with no answers
I think everyone's on the same page with these: if they're off-topic, they should get closed or migrated. Ideally, crap just gets closed (and will be auto-deleted), but there's no way to avoid ...
Well, you can simply view the unanswered section, sorted by "newest", then go to the last page, like so:
So there is already a way to achieve this.