Timeline for answer to Upcoming Feature: New Question Close Experience by l4mpi
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 15:29 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 8, 2020 at 11:00 | comment | added | Peter Cordes | I don't either, but as a compromise if someone at SO insists on doing this, to make it less bad during a hypothetical trial period. After the trial period it will hopefully be obvious to everyone that it didn't work (or else we're both wrong and it could work given sufficiently-good natural language heuristics that magically can detect good edits). | |
| Apr 8, 2020 at 10:58 | comment | added | l4mpi | @PeterCordes given how many trash questions I've seen getting upvoted over the years (e.g. unreadable rants, uncommented code dumps, or even plain old spam), I'd say the threshold would need to be somewhere around +5 to even be remotely useful. But as I think the potential negative effects of automatic reopening are far worse than its benefits, I simply don't think any question should be automatically reopened at all. | |
| Apr 7, 2020 at 11:58 | comment | added | Peter Cordes | Perhaps automatic reopen could be limited to questions with score >= -2, if someone insists on having it at all? Casting a close vote without a down vote is usually a sign that a question might be salvageable. But any auto-reopen is probably a bad idea. | |
| Apr 1, 2020 at 11:52 | history | answered | l4mpi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |