Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 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

At the time of this writing, this post is locked, with a comment sending people off to Meta SO, but not to any specific post.

This is rather annoying. IMHO locking a post should require/encourage linking to a meta discussion about this post.

enter image description here

share|improve this question
I don't think that referring to a certain post would do any good. Given that this is one engine used on all sites, linking their against a post seems like a problem. – Time Traveling Bobby Jun 22 '12 at 9:39
+1. It could at least link to What is a locked post IMO. – Matt Jun 22 '12 at 9:41
The formulation is indeed confusing. I have seen people in the past coming over to Meta expecting there to be an ongoing discussion on the issue. Perhaps it can be reformulated to indicate that if a discussion about this is necessary, it should take place on Meta. – Bart Jun 22 '12 at 10:20
up vote 2 down vote accepted

I always understood the sentence as meaning:

  • Visit meta to see if there is a question about the specific question.
  • If there isn't any question on meta about that question, ask it.

To me, visit meta doesn't mean on meta there is surely the information I am looking for, but it is the place where such information should be asked.

Probably, "For more info visit meta." could be removed, as users are supposed to know to ask on meta, in those cases. It still makes sense to use that sentence in the case it is an answer to be locked, to avoid users post comments to the question, asking why the answer has been locked.

Instead of visit, the sentence could use consult; IMO, it would be clearer the users are not just supposed to look at the meta site, but eventually ask a question, if they don't find any useful information in existing questions. (It is what I would expect users do, when they visit a meta site, and they don't find the information they were looking for.)

share|improve this answer
The wording "for more info" implies that there is more info on Meta. – lanzz Jun 22 '12 at 12:32
@lanzz: There is more info here, we've got a ton of questions about locked posts. If there is no directly related question to it, it can be asked. That's like linking "More Info Here" to the FAQ and the contact information. – Time Traveling Bobby Jun 22 '12 at 12:41
Not if the previous sentence also implies that there are "ongoing disputes" somewhere. Which, it turns out is not where people should be looking for more info? How does that make sense? – lanzz Jun 22 '12 at 12:44
well at least they will be less inclined to ask the question on SO – Some Helpful Commenter Jun 22 '12 at 12:55
@lanzz The meta site is the place where such information should be looked, and it is also the place where such information should be asked. If you have any question about a post you see in a Stack Exchange site, you should ask it in its meta site. – kiamlaluno Jun 22 '12 at 13:37
So, the point is that as long as the message is pointing in the right direction, it is OK to be as misleading as possible? – lanzz Jun 22 '12 at 13:52
@lanzz To me, it is not misleading. The meta site is the place where to look for more information about locked posts, and it is also the place to ask for more information. The link is not for a completely unrelated site. – kiamlaluno Jun 22 '12 at 13:55
"while disputes about its content are being resolved" implies that are concrete disputes about this question. Where are those disputes if not on a specific Meta question? Should a Meta post disputing this question exist prior to its locking? – ripper234 Jun 22 '12 at 14:56
@ripper234 The dispute in this specific case is about the question being a duplicate; if you look at the question's revisions, the question has been closed, re-opened, re-closed, and re-opened. That is one of the reasons why a question is locked. – kiamlaluno Jun 22 '12 at 15:00
@kiamlaluno - but there are zero comments on the question ... I just don't get how a question can get so battled without any comments. Were comments deleted? – ripper234 Jun 23 '12 at 5:47
@ripper234 I personally avoid leaving such comments, which normally just generate debates. There could be no comments, and users vote to close the question, or re-open it. Disputes don't necessarily involve comments. – kiamlaluno Jun 23 '12 at 17:35

You must log in to answer this question.

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