Timeline for First-time user suggestion for improved on-topic clarity
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 30, 2017 at 8:39 | comment | added | gnat | attitude like expressed in this answer will likely make SE management feel happy "Spolsky transformed SO to match his vision... It did empower more SO users to ask questions; it's much easier now that there's no need for showing research or understanding of the problem. These users are also a voting force: any meta proposal that tries to do something about the flagging quality of Q+A is quickly voted into the ground. Users want a forum, not a wiki..." | |
| Dec 6, 2017 at 21:11 | comment | added | Ewan | its not where you draw the line so much as how soon you draw it I think. we should be looking at how to make questions work first before removing them. After all they are the content that drives the site | |
| Dec 6, 2017 at 20:43 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | It's that "considerable room" that is the heart of the problem here. Where do you draw the line? | |
| Dec 6, 2017 at 16:05 | comment | added | Ewan | surely concepts such as 'graceful degredation' are on topic. There is considerable room for interpretation of the question in a broader context | |
| Dec 6, 2017 at 15:50 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | @SimonB: It's about deciding the importance of browser market share. By that logic, marketing questions are also on-topic. | |
| Dec 6, 2017 at 14:34 | comment | added | Simon B | @RobertHarvey Yes. It looks like a requirements elicidation question, which is on-topic. | |
| Dec 5, 2017 at 19:23 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | Frankly I think we are far too quick to close questions on technicalities. -- Is there any doubt that the example post the OP provided is clearly and unambiguously off-topic? | |
| Dec 5, 2017 at 17:14 | history | answered | Ewan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |