awarded
awarded
awarded
comment
Bad rejection: Moderators should probably err on the side of inclusion, not on the side of rejection
I'm sorry, I must be at a different stack exchange site, because the one I go to, says explicitly, do not make minor changes.
comment
Bad rejection: Moderators should probably err on the side of inclusion, not on the side of rejection
Gedanken Experiment to all those agreeing my edit was of not much value. If you had seen side by side the original two lines saying "use cygwin ssh" or my expanded answer saying "use cygwin ssh" and also detailing the various benefits and advising how to secure and automate the solution, which answer would you have voted for? As I've been saying the entire time, if you don't actually want people to improve the answer, you should remove that as an option. Just let people add comments.
comment
Bad rejection: Moderators should probably err on the side of inclusion, not on the side of rejection
Thank you, "My advice: Read, Understand, and decide if this is a community you want to continue to participate in." is a very long about way of saying foad / don't like it hit the road. And you wonder why people might think you're hostile to newbies.
comment
Bad rejection: Moderators should probably err on the side of inclusion, not on the side of rejection
Exactly, which is why I've said, there is no way I will ever choose "Improve an answer" again. What are the rational reasons why anyone should choose this answer, given the likely conduct of the moderators, and the walled off nature of SE and the likely beatdown it exposes a newbie to? As an example, see how much this question itself has been downvoted... Instead of improving an answer, I will always choose make my own answer, regardless of how that diminishes the effectiveness of the site to the end users.
awarded
comment
Bad rejection: Moderators should probably err on the side of inclusion, not on the side of rejection
I think you're asking for a subtlety here that is beyond the system or most users. Serverfault SPECIFICALLY asked me to "improve the answer" and "add a comment." I chose "improve the answer". Sam and Serverfault said "FU". Now you tell me it's clear that I should have chosen "add a comment."
comment
Bad rejection: Moderators should probably err on the side of inclusion, not on the side of rejection
I disagree that it adds no more to the answer. Setup an ssh server sounds pretty daunting to many people. Is it simple? Is it difficult? What are the benefits? IN THIS CONTEXT, what are the benefits over the TELNET solution also offered? Telling someone how to secure and automate their solution further does not seem to be a opinion answer.
comment
Bad rejection: Moderators should probably err on the side of inclusion, not on the side of rejection
I didn't make this an answer of my own, because the basic answer, use ssh was right there. INSTEAD, since serverfault INVITED AND ASKED ME to improve the answer, I chose to improve the answer. Perhaps Sam, instead of his blind rejection, could have taken that and turned it into a comment. This is one way of many that serverfault/stackexchange are downright rude and hostile to newcomers and inexperienced users
comment
Bad rejection: Moderators should probably err on the side of inclusion, not on the side of rejection
As I said elsewhere, if you and the mods have no time to do a decent job with the edit queue, THAN remove the edit queue. Don't make false promises that you can't keep, or do a quality job with.
awarded