Timeline for Why would you close a question that already has answers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 23 at 18:30 | comment | added | CPlus Mod | @guest271314 I usually give some time for the question to age and the community to react before taking moderator action, unless there is a pressing reason otherwise, such as a very blatantly off-topic/low-quality question, spam, abuse, etc. | |
| Aug 23 at 17:16 | comment | added | guest271314 | @CPlus "Not sure about casting a binding reopen vote yet." Huh? You got some hidden criteria you are employing? | |
| Aug 23 at 8:44 | comment | added | CPlus Mod | @DocBrown Your edit does make the post significantly more focused and clear in my opinion. Given that your answer that offers terminology was accepted by OP, I suppose that the OP was seeking terminology is a safe assumption. Not sure about casting a binding reopen vote yet. | |
| Aug 23 at 8:39 | comment | added | Doc Brown | @CPlus: when questions ask for terminology in our field, often there is no clear answer, and a closage as "opinionated" is justified. However, in this case, there is IMHO some established terminology. Not a single word, but 3 or 4 frequently used terms. I tried to reword the OPs final question a bit, maybe it helps to see it from my POV? | |
| Aug 23 at 5:48 | comment | added | CPlus Mod | @DocBrown "Describe" alone is vague and could mean a lot of things. The question already "described" the <thing> in a sense, so are they asking for, another description? A single terminology word? The question gives very little information as to what kind of answer they are expecting. | |
| Aug 23 at 5:27 | comment | added | Doc Brown | @CPlus: you are referring to this question, I guess? I agree that this wording might be an indicator, but it should not be the only point for an assessment. I think such questions sometimes can be answerable, it depends on what <thing>" is. | |
| Aug 23 at 0:38 | comment | added | CPlus Mod | @guest271314 If you knowingly refuse to follow site guidelines, and ignore feedback you get on your questions, then do not be surprised when they get downvoted and closed. For example, questions like "How would you describe/implement <thing>" without a specific problem statement are too vague and opinion-based. | |
| Aug 22 at 23:52 | comment | added | guest271314 | @CPlus I'm not catering to you folks to reopen my question. You're gonna have to keep recycling old questions to throw on your home page to keep this place going... | |
| Aug 22 at 20:39 | comment | added | CPlus Mod | @guest271314 Furthermore, your reactions to your questions being closed is not helpful to getting them reopened. Instead of trying to blame others for not understanding your question, not having implemented your algorithm (not relevant, domain expertise does not equate to ability to identify poorly-fitting questions), accusing us of finding 'excuses' to close your question, and so on, the real question should be "How can I improve my question? How can I make my question more focused/fitting?" | |
| Aug 22 at 20:35 | comment | added | CPlus Mod | @guest271314 Sorry but providing a large section of code and asking for optimizations/observations (including about specific functions, like findIndex()) is very blatantly a code-review question. If you want your question reopened, try giving a high-level overview of the algorithm (to avoid coming off as a code-review question), provide reason(s) why you find your algorithm not fast enough, and ask how to solve that reason. Otherwise your question will appear to be a code-review (and thus off-topic) or too broad (lacks a specific problem). | |
| Aug 22 at 16:18 | comment | added | guest271314 | @DocBrown You know, the handful of folks on this board who are pendantic about questions and answers could just form a cabal and vote to write and answer all questions. Then you could get rid of comments altogether, because you folks are the epitome of perfection when it comes to writing questions and answers that suit your narrow idea of what this board is about. You can rotate questions and answers amongst the half-dozen to dozen folks who share the same ideology about this social media site. | |
| Aug 22 at 15:55 | comment | added | guest271314 | @DocBrown findIndex() just finds the index given certain criteria. In this case finding \r\n. findIndex() does not have to be used there. The folks over on SO banned me, I'm in the middle of the nth ban they conjured up. I still think this is a software engineering question. To me it apprears nobody on this board has implemented Trasnfer-Encoding: chunked parser, and are trying to obscure that fact by saying the optimization question is not on-topic here. | |
| Aug 22 at 11:40 | comment | added | Doc Brown | @guest271314: from your question: "What are your suggestions for optimizing the findIndex() part,..." - where AFAICS findIndex is a specific code line inside a long code block in the code of the function getChunkedData. Sorry, but for me this looks a lot like a question at the code level. Why not give it a try and migrate the question to Stackoverflow? | |
| Aug 21 at 14:41 | comment | added | guest271314 | "Your question is about optimization at a code level, which isn't a good fit here." That's not true. I didn't ask about code level. It's just that none of the 3 or 4 folks who happen to hang out here have evidently done a Transfer-Encoding: chunked parser, and so made up excuses to close the question. That's how I see it. | |
| Aug 21 at 8:52 | comment | added | Doc Brown | @guest271314: ... and did you notice that one of the answerers also cast a close-vote? So though getting an answer is only a light-to-medium indication for a question to be on-topic, this is not always a clear statement or justification. This is quite case-dependent. | |
| Aug 21 at 6:04 | comment | added | Doc Brown | @guest271314: honest question: did you read the optimization tag description? Especially after I took your misunderstanding about its meaning as an opportunity to improve it (two days ago)? | |
| Aug 20 at 15:01 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | @guest271314 Questions about optimization - at a strategic or design level - are on-topic here, so I wouldn't thing the tag should go away. Your question is about optimization at a code level, which isn't a good fit here. And there's nothing about high-rep users having more weight with their votes, but people who are high-rep users tend to have a much better understanding of the scope and expectations of this community. Not knowing enough about a topic doesn't mean you can't read and identify a poorly fitting question. | |
| Aug 20 at 14:36 | comment | added | guest271314 | "Three people - two high-rep users and one elected moderator - both felt that it should be closed" Um, there were 3 answers before folks voted to close. So that's a push. Unless you're asserting that "high-rep users" vote to close has more weight than "high-rep users" who answered the question? The whole "rep" thing doesn't mean squat to me. One of your moderators confessed in chat they have never implemented Transfer-Encoding: chunked parser. Then gets involved with closing the question. That user should have recused themselves from anything to do with the question. Conflict of interests. | |
| Aug 20 at 14:11 | comment | added | guest271314 | So you ignore the users who understood and took the time and effort to answer the question. Seems to me you folks should get rid of the optimization tag if that's the case. | |
| Aug 19 at 14:27 | history | answered | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |