Timeline for Upcoming Feature: New Question Close Experience
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
116 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 2021 at 15:17 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | Sorry for any inconvenience. I lost a bit track of this upcoming feature. In which phase is it currently? | |
| Jun 14, 2020 at 21:06 | comment | added | Justin Time - Reinstate Monica | This would put duplicates in a friendlier light; explain that one of the major benefits of being marked a duplicate is that it means a high-quality answer is likely to not only already exist, but have already been scrutinised by the community; and preserve the main functionality of duplicates (redirecting search results to the underlying issue and appropriate answers). It does lead to the question of how to detect false positives (posts that are similar to pre-existing posts, but not actually duplicates), but that one's always been hard to solve, from what I understand. | |
| Jun 14, 2020 at 21:02 | comment | added | Justin Time - Reinstate Monica | Hmm... regarding the duplicate sub-issue, @Des, it might be helpful to include a notice that explains that being marked as a duplicate isn't necessary a bad thing, or meant to be unwelcoming, but merely indicates that an answer on another question (the dupe target) is highly likely to answer the duplicate as well, and that the target answer has most likely been tested and examined by the user base; ideally, there would be a means of indicating which answer in particular addresses the duplicate's situation, so people don't automatically assume it means the accepted and/or top-voted answer(s). | |
| Jun 3, 2020 at 15:29 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| May 7, 2020 at 13:32 | comment | added | TylerH | @Des something I just realized hasn't been mentioned yet that has been needed basically forever is: the ability to change our close vote from one reason to another, at least for some period of time afterward. We can retract close votes but then cannot vote to close again, which means we often have to leave OP or other reviewers with conflicting/confusing thoughts on why a question might be close-worthy. Would love to see the up/down-vote 'lock-in' mechanism be adapted to close votes to allow us to change our vote reason for 30 mins or 8 hours or something after initially voting. | |
| Apr 18, 2020 at 17:46 | history | edited | DesStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 11 characters in body
|
| Apr 18, 2020 at 17:45 | comment | added | Des StaffMod | @skomisa I will remove it. Catija was hugely helpful and gracious in editing and monitoring this post. I meant no harm by it and would hate for anyone to think otherwise. | |
| Apr 18, 2020 at 1:43 | comment | added | Catija StaffMod | @skomisa I helped edit this post before it was posted. If it bothered me, I would have said something. :) I appreciate your concern but I'm not in any way harmed by this. | |
| Apr 18, 2020 at 0:26 | comment | added | skomisa |
@Des Regarding "...the lovely Catija...": OT, and maybe I'm missing something, but that seems like a highly inappropriate comment from SO's "Director of Product, Public Platform". Care to explain?
|
|
| Apr 8, 2020 at 17:31 | comment | added | Fabian Röling | The UI prototype says "read the comments", but there's no way to do that from there. | |
| Apr 8, 2020 at 17:29 | comment | added | Fabian Röling | My experience with the "review step" so far: "Weird, the site scrolled up instead of posting. I'll try the button again." | |
| Apr 7, 2020 at 12:11 | answer | added | Peter Cordes | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 7, 2020 at 11:41 | history | edited | samliewMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 6, 2020 at 15:30 | comment | added | S.S. Anne | It would seem somewhat odd reading the clarifying update first and then seeing "Hi! I'm Des" if you haven't read it yet. | |
| Apr 6, 2020 at 11:57 | history | reopened | CatijaStaffMod | ||
| Apr 6, 2020 at 11:53 | history | closed |
Jim G. L3viathan Azat Ibrakov bjb568 dan1st |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Apr 6, 2020 at 7:35 | answer | added | Sinatr | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 5, 2020 at 12:05 | answer | added | klutt | timeline score: 14 | |
| Apr 3, 2020 at 14:00 | comment | added | Shog9 | Good job with the update, @des - that reflects a good attitude and an effective strategy. It is heartening to see! | |
| Apr 3, 2020 at 13:33 | history | edited | JNatStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
included a reminder of how relevant posts can get staff attention
|
| Apr 3, 2020 at 11:13 | comment | added | Catija StaffMod | @jpmc26 That's phase 3, not phase 1. There's two sets of numbers in the post so it's kinda confusing but look at the section actually called "Phase 1" - This first phase is made up of foundational changes and does not yet introduce the new concepts of automatic reopen or hidden questions. These are things we’d likely do anyway and provide the groundwork for the other phases. | |
| Apr 3, 2020 at 8:53 | comment | added | Boaz | @YaakovEllis halfer is right - rewriting the post is like rewriting history. Instead of upending the original post, consider adding a note at the top pointing to the update at the bottom. Also, regularly signing your replies with "Thanks for your feedback" whenever you disagree with someone is just as condescending and unconstructive. | |
| Apr 3, 2020 at 7:40 | answer | added | GhostCat | timeline score: 15 | |
| Apr 2, 2020 at 21:04 | comment | added | jpmc26 | @NiettheDarkAbsol I believe you're looking for a different statistic. Sensitivity is the correct one, if I'm not mistaken. If we consider "closed" to be the "positive" category, then it's the portion of closed questions that were correctly closed. | |
| Apr 2, 2020 at 21:02 | comment | added | jpyams | Upvoted because it's good to see the company asking Meta for feedback early | |
| Apr 2, 2020 at 16:24 | answer | added | WackGet | timeline score: -21 | |
| Apr 2, 2020 at 16:23 | comment | added | jpmc26 | "...except for what we felt were least risky which is outlined as phase 1..." Phase 1 is extremely risky. Users are not likely to respond any more positively to their questions getting hidden completely, as this effectively turns closure into a deletion. The fundamental problem is that most people are not invested in writing a quality post, and this creates friction with a community and system that prioritizes that quality over giving answers. | |
| Apr 2, 2020 at 10:41 | comment | added | halfer | @YaakovEllis: you have mid-read me. I did not intend any condescension. I am happy to hear how I might have worded my comment so that it does not sound condescending. | |
| Apr 2, 2020 at 10:39 | comment | added | Yaakov Ellis StaffMod | @halfer There is no need for the condescending language please. We want the update at the top because it is a very long post, and the update is super important. It will be very easy for users to miss it if it is at the bottom (even if there is one line at the top saying that there is an update). Thanks for your feedback. | |
| Apr 2, 2020 at 10:32 | comment | added | halfer | @YaakovEllis: your rollback now means this post reads in reverse order, which makes it harder to understand for new readers. Edits should be presented in chronological order. Older users familiar with "netiquette" - now some forty years old I should think - discourage "top posting" for exactly this reason. | |
| Apr 2, 2020 at 1:31 | comment | added | Travis J | This post literally requests questions and feedback from the community. Voting to close as appearing to not seek input or discussion is preposterous. Can we please see some sort of extended term review ban for people who cast close votes here? | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 19:38 | comment | added | Richard | I wonder if posting this as a question for the community rather than presenting it as a fait accompli handed down from on high would have resulted in a better response? | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 18:39 | comment | added | S.S. Anne | @YaakovEllis Why? | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 16:01 | comment | added | Yaakov Ellis StaffMod | Please do not move the new clarifying update section around. We want it to be at the top of the post. Thanks. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 15:59 | history | rollback | Yaakov EllisStaffMod |
Rollback to Revision 4
|
|
| Apr 1, 2020 at 15:12 | comment | added | j08691 | "When a user edits a hidden question in a substantial way, it will automatically reopen (unhide) the question and return to its pre-close, public state." This is an AWFUL idea | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 14:43 | answer | added | Culyx | timeline score: 11 | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 11:52 | answer | added | l4mpi | timeline score: 16 | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 10:28 | comment | added | halfer | Please don't cast close votes on this, folks. It's absolutely great that the company want to share their research and ideas with the community. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 10:21 | history | edited | halfer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Repair top-posting (updates are best at the end, so readers who have not seen it before read it the correct chronological order)
|
| Apr 1, 2020 at 10:05 | comment | added | Security Hound | Here describes the issue way better than I can | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 10:01 | comment | added | Security Hound | @Adriaan - I see dozens of questions (weekly) that have potential but are closed due to clarity issues, eventually the author will edit the question, but lost all the reasons the community was wrong to close their question. Eventually they ask about their question on meta, we explain the reasons the question was closed, but now the only way to reopen the question is with a manual reopen vote (5). That one time in the reopen queue was wasted, with that original edit to the question, thus making it more difficult to reopen a question. | |
| Mar 31, 2020 at 22:11 | history | edited | DesStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3589 characters in body
|
| Mar 31, 2020 at 21:53 | answer | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | timeline score: 11 | |
| Mar 31, 2020 at 19:45 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 31, 2020 at 21:05 | |||||
| Mar 31, 2020 at 19:29 | comment | added | Jim G. | @Rubiksmoose: It's difficult to believe that more than a few Stack Exchange decision makers gave this the go ahead. | |
| Mar 31, 2020 at 18:54 | comment | added | user5739133 | @GordonGustafson I'm afraid that as a "drive-by" SO user, my experience has become somewhat dated in the years since I stopped being active on SO. I have posted a number of questions myself, which were marked as duplicates of questions which bore only a superficial resemblance to mine. I've long since deleted my questions out of frustration. To be clear, I have nothing but appreciation for our mods, but the fact is that they're a volunteer community of humans, some of whom are capable of making mistakes. Had there been a way for me to appeal those closures then, I might not be inactive now. | |
| Mar 31, 2020 at 18:25 | comment | added | Gordon Gustafson | @ChefCyanide That's an excellent viewpoint to bring up. Could you share some example questions that were incorrectly closed and not re-opened? | |
| Mar 31, 2020 at 18:18 | comment | added | user5739133 | (+1) SO's question close experience DESPERATELY needs to be refined beyond the swift and final death of all questions, including those which could be easily improved, or which were closed for invalid reasons. I'm not 100% on board with the auto-reopen portion, but everything else is, imo, a big step in the right direction. There needs to be a better system in place to appeal and correct question closures. Not all questions deserve to be reopened, but if anyone honestly believes that the SO community has 97% accuracy and correctness across all question closures, please stop kidding yourselves. | |
| Mar 31, 2020 at 16:34 | comment | added | Travis J | Edits which were meaningless and only reopened questions would more than likely be rare, and not cause significant issue anyway. Google doesn't care what the "status" of a question is, some gibberish without an answer isn't going to show up because it has low quality content anyway. The rest of this, auto reopen aside, is pure gold. I don't think it is fair to downvote this well intentioned outreach solely because of a disagreement of one issue being raised from so many. Vote as you will, but please at least consider the outreach as a whole. | |
| Mar 31, 2020 at 13:24 | comment | added | TylerH | @bwDraco btw only 3 reopen votes are required to reopen a question. 6 votes have never been required. | |
| Mar 31, 2020 at 12:35 | comment | added | gnat | @KonradRudolph it is easy to see that these were ruled out apriori: this post refers and links to "previously proposed solutions" and 2 of 3 links mention lowering (but non-zero) reopen votes, "This proposal requires one person besides the asker to be involved in the common case..." This was dropped without even mentioning | |
| Mar 31, 2020 at 12:02 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @gnat These are also worthwhile ideas, but I don’t see why you believe that they (a) haven’t been considered internally, and (b) are ruled out a priori. On the contrary, your comment makes it sound like you (along with much of Meta, MSO) are the one with the foregone conclusion, and interpret everything in that light. Either way I would be supportive of such a proposal, too, were it suggested. | |
| Mar 31, 2020 at 10:55 | comment | added | gnat | @KonradRudolph the obvious way out would be to decrease reopen votes to 2 or even 1 for edits that were determined reopen-worthy by an automatic system. The fact that this wasn't even considered (not even as an experiment) makes one feel like the proposed system is merely a recidive of a dreaded .015% theory, a belief that things will get better if they simply shut down "those angry few" | |
| Mar 31, 2020 at 9:44 | comment | added | user56reinstatemonica8 | +1 for coming and discussing these things BEFORE rolling them out. And also because most of the suggestions seem like good, interesting ideas, and the designs are really nice. I think much of the negativity is from people who got so used to having things like this imposed on us they haven't noticed that this is actually opening what looks like an honest discussion, and feel like they still need to fight tooth and nail all the time. | |
| Mar 31, 2020 at 8:31 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @zero298 97%? Nobody is making that claim. The claim is that >3% of questions merit being reopened, and in my experience that is trivially true. Getting a question reopened is currently way too hard. You effectively have to get super lucky | |
| Mar 31, 2020 at 8:29 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | I, for one, think there’s a lot of potential in this proposal, and I think automatically reopening a question (once!) after a substantial edit is a phenomenal idea that merits being tried out in practice: the burden of getting a question reopened is currently substantial, even if the OP has made the necessary edits. Some of the concerns against this, voiced here, are warranted but some are definitely overblown. | |
| Mar 31, 2020 at 3:08 | answer | added | The Guy with The Hat | timeline score: 6 | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 23:00 | answer | added | Travis J | timeline score: 15 | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 20:59 | comment | added | zero298 | Do you actually think that 97% of closed questions should have the ability to be reopened? What do you think a good target reopen rate is? How do you calculate that target? I flat out don't think that even a 50% reopen target is a good idea because not even half the questions that I VTC seem salvagable. | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 20:45 | comment | added | Security Hound | @NiettheDarkAbsol - Stack Exchange is worried about that other 3% and is going to require the community to "be nice" to the other 97% in order to capture the 3%. Of course there is no evidence that closing a question, that is out of scope, isn't already nice. As I indicated as the last year proves, this change will be happen regardless, of what the community believes. | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 19:45 | answer | added | einpoklum | timeline score: 6 | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 14:31 | comment | added | Niet the Dark Absol | I would argue that "just 3% of closed questions are ever reopened" is a sign that the people who close questions do so with 97% accuracy. | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 14:19 | comment | added | Security Hound | I routinely clear out the review queues multiple times a day. Most of those cases have absolutely no way of ever being within scope. If I were to be notified of every question, linked to a close vote that I issued, the only notifications my mind could process would those notifications leaving the actual good questions that have a chance but required clarification in the dust. However, it does not matter, this change (as described in the question) will be implemented despite the community saying it's a bad idea. | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 13:31 | comment | added | TylerH | @RandRandom tying the asker directly to the people who closed a question is the wrong direction. Anyone with the right privilege level and knowledge of the Q should be able to help; the system shouldn't encourage askers to hold three particular users hostage (or personally to blame). Close voters shouldn't feel responsible for the outcome of a question's final disposition, either; that onus must always be on the asker. Unfortunately, there are woefully inadequate controls for managing bad questions, so many CVers do feel responsible: responsible for ensuring bad Qs don't survive. | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 13:19 | comment | added | Rand Random | @TylerH - (cont) were responsible of the action, the story would have ended differently, also I think a user who closes a question should have a feeling of responsibility to that question and if it got edited the user who caused the close should be the first in action to be responsible to re-open it | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 13:19 | comment | added | Rand Random | @TylerH - that would imply that users actually edit there question, many of the questions I have seen so far that were closed because of off-topic or duplicate and so on didn't get edited and the questioner accepts the fact, though you could limit the pings to only those questions that got marked with "needs clarity", I also once had a question closed, and I edited but than I felt lost, because nothing happened, no one seemed to care, no feedback about my edit, nothing and I was left stranded with the feeling of "is my question, still not clear" but if I could interact with the users who... | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 13:11 | comment | added | TylerH | @RandRandom Users closing questions need to be able to turn off those pings per question. I close 40-50 questions a day... many of them cannot be edited into shape because they're inherently off-topic. I don't want to get 40+ pings a day about users complaining in an edit that their question was closed or that SO sucks. | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 11:06 | comment | added | Rand Random | An edit to question should automatically ping the users that closed the question, and ask them if the question is worth re-opening and if not ask them to tell the questioner what is still missing. | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 9:14 | comment | added | Mast | Users should be forced to read the rules. That's it. If you don't start with that, all other efforts are a waste of time and resources. | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 8:11 | comment | added | Temani Afif | @RyanLundy of course I am seaking for myself and for the 3214 questions I have already closed as duplicate. I am not throwing words, I speak based on data and stats I made myself with the questions I have closed. I have no responsibility for people who wrongly close question (I face them a lot and I am constantly correcting their error) so don't judge me based on other actions. | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 7:20 | answer | added | Sébastien Renauld | timeline score: 22 | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 6:55 | comment | added | Ryan Lundy | @TemaniAfif "most of users don't agree with duplicate simply because they don't like their question being closed as duplicate not because the duplicate isn't suitable" Speak for yourself. Every time I've had a question closed as duplicate, it was because the people closing it didn't bother to read carefully. Then I have to go and painstakingly explain why it's not a duplicate because they couldn't be bothered to think about it themselves. | |
| Mar 30, 2020 at 1:37 | comment | added | Martin Zeitler | These two editing forms are pretty redundant - nothing but useless complexity. I mean, we are not processing eCommerce orders on here, where it might eventually make sense. | |
| Mar 29, 2020 at 23:23 | comment | added | Security Hound | “ When a user edits a hidden question in a substantial way, it will automatically reopen (unhide) the question and return to its pre-close, public state.” - This is a bad idea. How about just putting it into a queue to be reopened more than once? | |
| Mar 29, 2020 at 23:22 | comment | added | Steve Bennett | I like the reframing of "closed" as "hidden". I would prefer to see a bit more "here's what we've come up with, what do you think, should we continue down this path?" and less "here's what we're going to do". | |
| Mar 29, 2020 at 18:55 | comment | added | gnat | @bwDraco recent research of SE engineering seems to indicate that Meta may have sufficient influence to make company distractive for investors. The question is, how much time it will take for top company management to realise and learn to live with that | |
| Mar 29, 2020 at 18:03 | answer | added | Marco Bonelli | timeline score: 28 | |
| Mar 29, 2020 at 16:21 | answer | added | hobbs | timeline score: 21 | |
| Mar 29, 2020 at 15:42 | comment | added | bwDraco | I have some serious concerns that this obsessive focus on research-based efforts to improve participation looks like an attempt to appear attractive to investors by focusing on user numbers rather than the well-being of the core community. I realize SEI needs more investors in order to survive and grow as a business in the long term (see also meta.stackexchange.com/q/342211) but it's just as important to solicit feedback from the community and be transparent about SEI's business needs so we can actually help SEI prosper without abandoning humanity. | |
| Mar 29, 2020 at 14:05 | answer | added | Adriaan | timeline score: 56 | |
| Mar 29, 2020 at 12:39 | comment | added | John Bollinger | I'm pleased to hear that, @Catija, but I hope you appreciate that the announcement reads as if all the major decisions have already been made, and the multi-phase incremental development process is primarily about delivery. A schedule is presented for developing everything described in the announcement. If that is not actually the way the announcement should be read then it would be really helpful if the announcement were rewritten to more accurately convey what is happening here. | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 22:56 | answer | added | eyllanesc | timeline score: 20 | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 22:12 | answer | added | user10957435 | timeline score: 37 | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 21:14 | comment | added | user7014451 | Like others, I have issues with what is "substantial editing". Since this needs to be clearly defined before implementing it, could you, um, edit your question to at least give us an idea of when Phase 2 is likely being rolled out? Finally, why not automatically route "substantially" edited dups to the review queue instead? I've found that many dups have comments arguing that it isn't one from the OP. | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 21:04 | comment | added | Jongware | Never mind the downvotes; thank you for putting some thought into this and sharing your ideas thus far. The regular visitors of meta are not your target audience – "bad" questions are our arch-nemeses, and out of sight is out of mind – but I can see how this may be able to turn a Bad Question into a (Reasonably) Good one. Is there objective evidence that this would be a good investment of your time? Can a significant number of quite obviously "bad" questions be salvaged this way? | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 18:31 | comment | added | Catija StaffMod | @JohnBollinger Hardly. There’s three phases and they talk a lot about testing and trying things out. We’re pretty early in this, which is why we’re posting now. We want to know what y’all think. | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 17:59 | comment | added | John Bollinger | Am I really seeing another "this is what we're going to do, whether you like it or not" announcement? Another "our staff thought about it, but we didn't discuss any details with the community until it was a fait accompli"? If so, then this is an unsatisfying flavor of transparency. | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 17:08 | answer | added | Makoto | timeline score: -10 | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 16:46 | answer | added | John Bollinger | timeline score: 69 | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 13:18 | answer | added | Jonas Wilms | timeline score: 6 | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 11:27 | answer | added | Cindy Meister | timeline score: 8 | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 11:21 | answer | added | Scratte | timeline score: 211 | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 8:11 | comment | added | Temani Afif | even if it's not a dumb check, a system cannot evaluate (based on OP's edit) that a question is no more a dupe and should be reopened (even the most advanced AI cannot). I usually close question with canonical target having 20 answers and OP always comment the same thing that answer is using X but I am asking for something different because he simply look at the accepted answer and never take the needed time to check ALL the answers, test them, understand them. I am already facing issues with blind vote (meta.stackoverflow.com/q/393400) and this automatic reopening will make it worse | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 7:03 | comment | added | amon | I think these steps are really good experiments to figure out what askers and curators need. But I don't expect these experiments to be particularly successful, for the reasons outlined in all the answers. Please don't activate automatic reopening unless the other components indicate an increase in edit quality. But nevertheless, thank you for engaging the Meta community early on. | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 3:22 | answer | added | MachavityMod | timeline score: 86 | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 3:18 | answer | added | 41686d6564 | timeline score: 102 | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 3:06 | comment | added | Catija StaffMod | @TemaniAfif There are a lot of things that we can test for when checking the content of edits... your example is one - finding places where the only content is "This isn't a duplicate" (or similar) vs "This isn't a duplicate [and here's an explanation of how it's different]". Similarly, we can check for edits that are merely "The moderators here are all terrible people who just don't understand what they're doing. This is a perfect question and there's no reason to close it." :) It doesn't have to be a completely dumb check. | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 1:26 | answer | added | Journeyman Geek | timeline score: 12 | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 1:15 | answer | added | S.S. Anne | timeline score: 19 | |
| Mar 27, 2020 at 23:09 | comment | added | Scratte | Not sure I quite follow the logic for two reasons: 1. Being told off is not going to feel better just because it's done in hidden posts. 2. Nobody knows who users are unless they deliberately choose to reveal that information. | |
| Mar 27, 2020 at 22:32 | comment | added | Temani Afif | Current thinking is to allow the user to confirm if it’s a duplicate question by selecting from suggested duplicates. --> most of users don't agree with duplicate simply because they don't like their question being closed as duplicate not because the duplicate isn't suitable ... the question will need to be edited before automatic reopening --> most of the edits are my question isn't a duplicate! so I don't agree at all with an automatic reopening of duplicate closure ... This will give us more job to reclose them again by calling another gold badge. | |
| Mar 27, 2020 at 22:19 | comment | added | Des StaffMod | @Scratte You’d still be able to share the question. We haven’t landed on the UX for discovering hidden questions. I think we need to strike a balance between Askers feeling intimidated because of how public the experience is and supported because the folks best equipped to help can easily do so. | |
| Mar 27, 2020 at 22:13 | comment | added | Des StaffMod | @Dharman we plan to treat closed as duplicate slightly differently. Current thinking is to allow the user to confirm if it’s a duplicate question by selecting from suggested duplicates. If it is, the question becomes public and references the duplicate. If it isn’t, the question will need to be edited before automatic reopening (if it’s the first closure). | |
| Mar 27, 2020 at 21:51 | comment | added | Rubiksmoose | Something that is good to note: this is a test/plan, nothing is set in stone. So, don't panic. :) | |
| Mar 27, 2020 at 21:48 | answer | added | DharmanMod | timeline score: 114 | |
| Mar 27, 2020 at 21:26 | comment | added | Scratte | So.. If I create a Question that's not very good, I can't ask a friend or any of the vast majority of users. I have to go and chase down a high-reputation user? I'm not sure that would work out very well. | |
| Mar 27, 2020 at 21:16 | history | edited | Cody GrayMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Feature question; remove unreadable white boxes (remember that emojis are platform specific)
|
| Mar 27, 2020 at 21:01 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
typo corrected in URL
|
| Mar 27, 2020 at 21:00 | comment | added | Dharman Mod | It is a little bit insulting when you realize you want to let 1 person who has probably no experience with this site overrule a decision made by 3 people with ceratin amount of experience just because they have edited the question. If 3 people closed the question then 3 people need to review it after edit is made and decide if it can be reopened. | |
| Mar 27, 2020 at 20:46 | answer | added | TylerH | timeline score: 149 | |
| Mar 27, 2020 at 20:45 | answer | added | Zoe - Save the data dump | timeline score: 222 | |
| Mar 27, 2020 at 20:41 | answer | added | VLAZ | timeline score: 38 | |
| Mar 27, 2020 at 20:31 | comment | added | Dharman Mod | What about duplicates? Does the same automatic reopening logic applies to them too? | |
| Mar 27, 2020 at 20:22 | answer | added | VLAZ | timeline score: 62 | |
| Mar 27, 2020 at 20:00 | history | asked | DesStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |