Timeline for Cleaning up link-only answers
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Nov 22, 2019 at 12:52 | vote | accept | goldilocks | ||
| Jun 13, 2017 at 15:43 | history | edited | goldilocksMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 71 characters in body |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:50 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/ with https://raspberrypi.meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 13:01 | history | edited | goldilocksMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 7 characters in body |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 12:57 | answer | added | goldilocksMod | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 12:40 | history | edited | goldilocksMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 67 characters in body |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 12:27 | history | edited | goldilocksMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 5 characters in body |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 17:51 | comment | added | Ghanima Mod | @goobering technically, if the same answer applies to two questions these questions are dupes and one should be closed as such. If the question links to more than one it would still be advisable to provide a little context. | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 13:05 | comment | added | goldilocks Mod | @goobering There's no reason for stuff like that to be anything but a comment unless the OP has something substantial to add, so I've converted it. To avoid hard feelings I won't do it to upvoted stuff from the past, but with that one it doesn't matter. So yeah, those are included. | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 12:41 | comment | added | goobering | I can't find suitable meta guidance on internally linked link-only answers. Are they subject to the same rules? | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 12:28 | comment | added | goldilocks Mod | There aren't piles of them incoming. We probably get notice about most of them automatically anyway because the system picks up on very short things that contain a lot of markup as "low quality", but contra my original answer to Dmitry if we are going to have a policy it doesn't hurt to flag them multiple times; it should be easy to tell when they have been dealt with because one of us will have left a comment. | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 11:57 | comment | added | KennetRunner | @goldilocks Agreed, just trying to understand how many (new ones per xxx) that is going to be going forward. | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 11:43 | comment | added | goldilocks Mod | @KennetRunner It would be better not to get too crazy too fast, at least because the three of us have to handle them. I'm not expecting anyone to go out hunting the old ones down -- if you happen to notice them great, post a flag. But not a dozen at a time. I'm more concerned about doing it consistently with new things. | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 8:25 | comment | added | KennetRunner | For context/background, do we (you all) have a feel for how many link only answers are submitted per week/month? It would be good to understand how the scale of the problem. | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 7:11 | answer | added | GhanimaMod | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 2:50 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackRaspi/status/778788583662612480 | ||
| Sep 22, 2016 at 0:51 | comment | added | Steve Robillard Mod | I would add that downvoting should be done prior to flagging, and applies the correct carrot and stick approach - IMHO. I had reservations about this as I felt it tortured the meaning of community wiki.However, I read this in the help center: Community wiki posts have been donated to the community in hopes that others will edit them to keep them up to date, to add useful information, and generally improve their quality. While a case could be made regarding the definition of donation. I think this is a fair use of the community wiki feature. | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 0:28 | comment | added | Steve Robillard Mod | I must misunderstand or not get the joke "FAO: Steve Robillard" ;) ? | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 22:14 | comment | added | goldilocks Mod | @goobering Yes, "FAO: Steve Robillard" ;) That's a joke. In all seriousness, I think we will get the point just by looking at the answer no matter what...these aren't ambiguous or prone to requiring much scrutiny (people literally do put things like "Here is a tutorial for you"). If you do want to use the custom message anything which includes "link-only" should do. They're limited to twitter length so you could always go with #linkOnly O_O. Just kidding again. Sort of. | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 22:06 | comment | added | goobering | I don't think I've flagged anything for mod attention before - do you guys want/need anything in particular in the mandatory description field as an identifier for link-only posts? | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 19:50 | history | edited | goldilocksMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 11 characters in body |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 14:50 | history | edited | goldilocksMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 289 characters in body |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 14:43 | history | edited | goldilocksMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 289 characters in body |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 14:15 | history | asked | goldilocksMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |