Timeline for How can we (or should we) keep "Amateur question about corrupt software" open?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2017 at 7:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced https://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Apr 12, 2017 at 7:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 21:26 | comment | added | Will I Am | By removing bullets, you've created a bunch of orphaned comments which no longer make sense, on topic or not. | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 19:01 | comment | added | Rachel | @MichaelT Yes, but Math.SE was probably a site that was created and defined by a dedicated community of users, not one that was created/defined by a dedicated community of users, and then had their scope redefined for them by SE. It also helps to have good clear guidelines for community moderation on meta, which you have done a great job at working on for this site. I wish you had been around when the site first changed it's scope/direction, instead of having to try and fill that gap in community education years after the site changed as you are doing now. | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 18:52 | comment | added | user40980 | ... Until people are willing to apply those quality standards here and down vote the poor quality answers so that they can be fixed or deleted, we see time and time again that people aren't willing to preform the necessary community moderation of the answer content such questions create. That is why the questions continue to remain off topic. When people are willing to moderate (which includes down voting) the material, it would be something to revisit and say "hey, look, we can keep the content quality consistently high." Until then, this question continues to demonstrate why we don't. | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 18:50 | comment | added | user40980 | @Rachel the problem is that today people continue to up vote material for such questions that doesn't completely answer the question or is just a one sentence answer to the sub question. In order to say that "yes, these questions might be allowable here today" one must demonstrate that they can produce content of high quality. People aren't participating in that moderation and curation of the content. It can work, MathOverflow routinely has big list questions - and they down vote and moderate the dickens out of their answers that aren't up to the quality standards. ... | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 18:47 | comment | added | Rachel | @MichaelT I'm not sure if you were around when the site was first created, however the community's definition of the site was a lot more relaxed and we liked a lot of the questions that SE considered "less than stellar". Even when SE decided to change the site scope, they didn't communicate that change to the community very well, so it's no surprise that the community didn't downvote/delete items that SE considered unacceptable for the site, since we thought those posts were fine. | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 18:27 | comment | added | user40980 | @Rachel the ability to have a more lose scope as the original was is predicated on the community to curate and moderate the content that is produced in the answers - and down voting and deleting the material that is less than stellar. That people weren't doing this in the original site and still aren't doing this now demonstrates why the current community of people answering such questions and voting on the answers isn't disciplined enough to have such. Maybe if people down voted the answers that were short, poorly written or incomplete... but until that happens this is the scope. | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 8:34 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackProgrammer/status/606016015961587712 | ||
| Jun 1, 2015 at 18:48 | comment | added | Rachel | Original Programmers.SE scope, that question would have been great. Current Programmers.SE scope, definitely not. Too bad, I liked the original scope better :p | |
| May 25, 2015 at 20:58 | answer | added | Brendan | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 25, 2015 at 17:33 | comment | added | user40980 | @AK_ it would make a great discussion topic. I could certainly see interesting chat conversations based on those questions. It makes a poor Q&A topic and thus makes other Q&A topics harder to find. It is what Stack Exchange is based on and with a few oddball exceptions (WorldBuilding, I'm looking at you) is the value proposition of Stack Exchange. Not all questions fit here. Trying to make them all fit end you end up with lots of low quality posts with few experts answering and, well, that is what Stack Exchange strives to avoid by saying "discussions don't work here." | |
| May 25, 2015 at 15:49 | comment | added | AK_ | This is what's wrong with stackoverflow.... | |
| May 25, 2015 at 15:10 | vote | accept | Ixrec | ||
| May 25, 2015 at 15:00 | comment | added | yannis Mod | Just remove references to #5 from the answers @gnat. | |
| May 25, 2015 at 14:06 | comment | added | gnat | @Yannis that's nice, but after this edit, all answers referring removed point (4 of 5) look like pulling stuff out of thin air. I considered for a while voting them down and commenting for authors to account for question edit, but given upvotes brought in by hot list lemmings, this will likely result only in rep loss for me | |
| May 25, 2015 at 13:53 | answer | added | user40980 | timeline score: 8 | |
| May 25, 2015 at 13:51 | comment | added | Reactgular | It's not a programming question. It's someone seeking advice from a consultant. It's no different if someone asked "how much would this idea cost to be programmed?". The problem is that the "idea" part of the question is interesting. That's why it's getting up votes. The question should be moved to another stackoverflow sight that is more relevant. | |
| May 25, 2015 at 13:43 | comment | added | yannis Mod | I removed bullet point #5. It doesn't even come close to being essential to the question. | |
| May 25, 2015 at 13:41 | history | edited | yannisMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | I never understood why people would link to answers when talking about the question (yes, this is very common) |
| May 25, 2015 at 13:15 | comment | added | gnat | "What would be your biggest concern..." and ""What is your biggest pet peev..." parts read like polling for opinions | |
| May 25, 2015 at 12:46 | history | edited | Ixrec | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 81 characters in body |
| May 25, 2015 at 12:40 | history | asked | Ixrec | CC BY-SA 3.0 |