Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 157 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

I am having hard time trying to figure what made two questions duplicates?

Here is how I read these

  1. fix a minor glitch in a generally perfectly working feature
    The glitch is: link to flagging history usually shown to users with non-empty history disappears when flag weight meets some irrelevant condition
  2. make a major change to a generally perfectly working feature
    Permanent Flag Weight History Link on User Profile
    The proposed change is: display link to flagging history always, even when users has it empty

I can grok that change proposed in second question would "fix" the glitch reported the first one. But is this a valid reason to close first question as an exact duplicate of the second?

BTW here is a suggestion I see in closed question:

This question covers exactly the same ground as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question.

Great, fine - I attempted proposed merge in the question declared as "identical". Somehow though I don't feel like this is a "merge" indeed. Somehow I feel like I attempted to answer two different questions.

share|improve this question
Note that I edited the second question that was initially tagged feature-request, after my bug report was closed as a duplicate of it. I'm honestly not sure whether one.beat.consumer wants to display the flag history link all the time or only when the flag history is non-empty. – Gilles Jan 16 '12 at 21:45
up vote 1 down vote accepted

They are not exact duplicates. Clearly the intent of the developers is to not show the flag history/weight when it's not interesting. Ignoring implementation details for a moment, that seems to be the feature we should and do have. I have no problem with that, but #2 apparently does and wants to always see the link. So #2 wants to propose a new feature to change from "don't show if not interesting" to "always show."

However, that is indeed a feature request, whereas #1 refers to a bug. Proponents of #1 might accept that it's perfectly fine to not show the link when the flag weight/history is not interesting. The bug in the implementation is that the criteria for not interesting was flag weight == 100. The example from #1 of 1 flag helpful and one 1 declined is not the same as no history of flags. It's admittedly a minor issue that you guys might not want to give enough priority to fix, but I maintain that it is indeed a bug. This isn't asking for a new feature, it's asking you to fix the implementation bug in defining when flag weights/histories are non-interesting. This is not an exact duplicate of #2 and it should be re-opened.

share|improve this answer

It would have been better to just retag Flag history not shown in the profile when the flag weight is 100 to as the whole language and angle of the post was a request to change the current behaviour.

And the earlier question it was closed a duplicate of was just that. Until it was entirely reworded to become a bug report instead of a wish to change the current nature of how and when the link to flag history shows.

What's the difference between these two feature requests? One is for the link to always be accessible. The newer is for it to show when they've raised their first flag.

share|improve this answer
I see. As far as I can tell currently things work as designed, per your past answer "If you're above... 100, you'll see a value for your flag weight." – gnat Jan 18 '12 at 6:37
It really is a bug though, even if you designed it that way. The intent is clearly to avoid showing a the flag history/weight when it is not interesting. The bug in the implementation is that the criteria for not interesting was flag weight == 100. – Michael McGowan Jan 19 '12 at 16:56
@random 1-st question is updated with this screen shot - could you please comment it? – gnat Jan 19 '12 at 18:27
A bugbear is not the same as a software bug @mic – random Jan 19 '12 at 20:56
@random Is your intent to hide uninteresting flag weights or is it to hide flag weights that just so happen to equal a specific value? If it's the former then it's a bug in the implementation. If it's the latter then you correctly implemented a pointless feature. – Michael McGowan Jan 19 '12 at 21:09
Doesn't matter how you're at the starting blocks, when you're at 100, no link is shown. Currently. @mic – random Jan 19 '12 at 21:13
But I argue if that is the spec then it is utterly pointless. Isn't the real point to hide uninteresting flag weights? – Michael McGowan Jan 19 '12 at 21:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .