Timeline for Off topic questions have to be cleared out of the way, but NOT via closure
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
47 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 15:29 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jul 2, 2017 at 22:11 | answer | added | user1122069 | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 23, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Dec 10, 2016 at 0:44 | history | edited | Nissa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Tag markdown
|
| Mar 3, 2016 at 16:10 | comment | added | TylerH | If you think Stack Overflow is unique in that it receives low-quality questions that steal attention, think again... | |
| Mar 2, 2016 at 22:11 | answer | added | Cimbali | timeline score: -2 | |
| Sep 20, 2015 at 2:26 | history | edited | bjb568 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Poemified last line :D
|
| Dec 11, 2014 at 14:36 | comment | added | gnat | related: Help us test question triage! (not exactly a separate venue but rather attempt to shut down close-worthy questions before these get a chance to be happily answered and accepted) | |
| Oct 13, 2014 at 8:23 | comment | added | gnat | related: What should the system be deleting automatically that it already isn't? | |
| Jun 1, 2014 at 12:51 | answer | added | NirMH | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 26, 2014 at 19:53 | comment | added | Denis de Bernardy | I'm at a total loss as to why this question got tons of upvotes whereas this here and those I linked to got shot down and down voted. | |
| Apr 25, 2014 at 9:30 | history | edited | Benjamin Gruenbaum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
metas joined
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 21:34 | history | migrated | from meta.stackexchange.com (revisions) | ||
| Apr 23, 2014 at 16:34 | answer | added | Michael | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 10:13 | comment | added | Denis de Bernardy | "closed as a stupid question" — I frequently wish that close option was actually available. Closing due to lack of a minimum understanding of the problem being solved always strikes me as far too polite. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 8:46 | comment | added | Your Common Sense |
*sigh* the only intended pun was burned away along with other mistakes :(
|
|
| Sep 27, 2013 at 18:33 | answer | added | enderland | timeline score: 22 | |
| Sep 27, 2013 at 16:57 | answer | added | Shog9StaffMod | timeline score: 83 | |
| Sep 27, 2013 at 11:33 | answer | added | hyde | timeline score: 14 | |
| Sep 27, 2013 at 11:19 | answer | added | apaul | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 27, 2013 at 3:28 | answer | added | Peter Alfvin | timeline score: 8 | |
| Sep 27, 2013 at 1:43 | answer | added | bmargulies | timeline score: 12 | |
| Sep 26, 2013 at 17:06 | answer | added | Adam Rackis | timeline score: 5 | |
| Sep 26, 2013 at 16:47 | comment | added | Kuba Ober | The entirety of this question is words taken from my mouth. I couldn't agree more! | |
| Sep 26, 2013 at 16:33 | answer | added | PearsonArtPhoto | timeline score: 16 | |
| Sep 26, 2013 at 15:24 | comment | added | Oded StaffMod | @DImension10AbhimanyuPS - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Too_long;_didn't_read - essentially a summary of the post, normally at the top. | |
| Sep 26, 2013 at 15:20 | comment | added | Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir | @Oded: What's TL;DR ? | |
| Sep 26, 2013 at 14:56 | comment | added | Esoteric Screen Name | @YourCommonSense Yes, absolutely the volume of simple questions buries good ones underneath a pile of noise. My point was that the focus on professionals at the start of the question is a red herring. | |
| Sep 26, 2013 at 14:54 | answer | added | Esoteric Screen Name | timeline score: 25 | |
| Sep 26, 2013 at 14:27 | comment | added | Your Common Sense | @EsotericScreenName your case is rather exceptional than common. In general a professional has his job to do. Speaking of the flow, yes - that's what I am talking about - a hundred of simple questions make single good one too hard to find. | |
| Sep 26, 2013 at 13:46 | comment | added | Esoteric Screen Name | I disagree with one of your main premises: I'm a professional developer and I have plenty of time to sit around and read silly questions, and have enough left over to write out decent answers. Furthermore, if so many of these questions are novice level - and you're right, the bulk of new questions are - why do they need attention from a professional? No reason an enthusiast couldn't answer them. | |
| Sep 26, 2013 at 11:00 | comment | added | user247702 | I've made a chart showing the number of questions per month. Could perhaps be useful for this discussion. Don't mind the labels too much, I'm not an Excel wizard. | |
| Sep 26, 2013 at 9:28 | answer | added | sectus | timeline score: 8 | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 16:29 | comment | added | jball | @Your, I find your points a mixed bag but strongly agree that aggressive deletionism is not the only possible path to a well curated site (or that deletionism is even the best way to achieve that). | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 16:25 | answer | added | Robert HarveyMod | timeline score: 146 | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 14:36 | comment | added | user50049 |
This is something we (the community team) have talked about, mostly in the context of making /review smarter when it comes to what you're shown to review. The Colonel made a few good points in this rant, and I'm glad he finally got it into words.
|
|
| Sep 25, 2013 at 14:33 | comment | added | Ry- Mod | You raise a lot of good points… including the one that nothing’s going to happen. :( | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 14:18 | comment | added | Oded StaffMod | To add to what @Servy said - if you dropped the rant and came to the problem directly, offering the solution (and not asserting things like "the system is broken", when you are talking about a specific part of the system, for instance), you would have gotten a better reception. | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 14:13 | comment | added | Servy | @YourCommonSense Then why waste people's time posting it at all, and why intentionally make a post that's dramatically less likely to be taken seriously? If you want it to fail then it will, and you'll only have yourself to blame, not the system. | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 14:12 | comment | added | Your Common Sense | I know already it won't with any tone. | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 14:09 | comment | added | Servy | The overall tone of this post is not constructive at all. You should address that if you want this to be taken seriously. | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 14:07 | answer | added | OdedStaffMod | timeline score: 27 | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 14:07 | comment | added | Richard Tingle | I disagree with everything you've said but +1 for stating up front that this is a rant. How do we feel about a rant tag? | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 14:06 | comment | added | George Mitchell | "Of course, flogging as well..." I completely agree! Let's ditch the question bans and start flogging the poor question askers! That should be enough to keep them at bay! Spammers too! | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 14:04 | comment | added | Oded StaffMod | Do you mind starting with a tl;dr in the future? Most people will start reading this rant and never reach the punchline. | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 14:01 | history | asked | Your Common Sense | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
