Timeline for Cap deletion votes at 20 for megaupvoted golden oldies
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 4, 2012 at 7:41 | comment | added | sudo rm -rf | @RobertHarvey: Ah, thought I'd found the original. Oh well! | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 6:47 | comment | added | user102937 | @sudorm-rf: It's the same answer as stackoverflow.com/a/2835936/102937. It got merged in from the original question. | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 6:45 | comment | added | sudo rm -rf | @RobertHarvey: This seems to be a functional copy from a scraper: techques.com/question/1-2835801/… It even includes the comments. Gotta be grateful for those scrapers once in a long while. | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 4:35 | comment | added | Adam Rackis | Thanks @Robert. Eric is amazing. I wish he'd publish a book of his SO's greatest hits. btw, it was fun being the 200th upvote on that answer :) | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 4:28 | comment | added | user102937 | @AdamRackis: Alas, I think that answer is well and truly gone; it seems to have disappeared into the bit bucket. However, this answer is fairly similar: stackoverflow.com/a/2835936/102937 | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 4:16 | comment | added | Adam Rackis | @Robert - go go go find that answer!!! | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 4:14 | comment | added | user102937 | @AdamRackis: I was just told that Eric's answer was not, in fact, hard deleted... It was merged into another question. We didn't have merge stubs back then. [goes off to hunt for Eric's answer] | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 4:12 | comment | added | Adam Rackis | @Robert - which is the deep, fundamental problem with deleting stuff. Content should come first, rules second. | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 4:05 | comment | added | user102937 | @AdamRackis: Sorry about that. As a high-rep user, I was content to have access to its deleted form. The answer was quite good; alas, after all this time, I couldn't even give you the gist of it from memory. | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 4:03 | comment | added | Adam Rackis | Damn it, @Robert, why would you link to that question if it doesn't exist anymore. I clicked it assuming Jeff had restored the content, expecting to see some Eric Lippert brilliance... | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 2:22 | comment | added | Brad Larson | @RobertHarvey - Yeah, that's how I caught the latter of those questions, and it might start some arguments in the near term. I think Shog9 states it nicely, and I agree with the proposal here to make it more practical for the community to deal with these questions. It's a lot easier for people to tee off on individuals, but if 10 or 20 people all agreed that something needed to be deleted, they're going to have a harder time arguing against that. It'll also work against the (misguided) notion of a cabal of moderators ruling with an iron fist around here. | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 2:05 | comment | added | user102937 | @BradLarson: Point taken. But the contention has become a bit more focused by the fact that people can now see the affect these deletions have on their rep instantaneously. | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 2:04 | comment | added | Brad Larson | For example, I was glad to see this question get taken back behind the shed, because I didn't deserve the reputation gained from what was just me giving an opinion in the middle of a language flamewar. I'd even removed that one from the top answers list on my Careers profile, because it wasn't quality content. I think reputation-based arguments can be put to rest pretty quickly around these question deletions, but the content issues are tougher to resolve. | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 2:01 | comment | added | Brad Larson | Great writeup, as always. One comment I would make is on the statement "A lot of the butthurt stems from the fact that people are losing substantial rep from these questions when they get deleted." In my opinion, the most contentious arguments have come about due to deletion of content that people thought had value, like here, and reputation lost didn't really enter into that. I think people don't care as much about that old reputation as they do anything that took a little work to write. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 20:04 | comment | added | Mysticial | Ah, thanks! Still better than nothing. Though it doesn't have Eric Lippert's answer on it (not the first page at least). Maybe it was archived before he made the answer? | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 19:55 | comment | added | user102937 | @Mystical: web.archive.org/web/20100208233119/http://stackoverflow.com/…. It's a mess, though; none of the original formatting was preserved. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 19:49 | comment | added | Mysticial | Has that question ever been archived somewhere? I wasn't here during those days and I'm quite curious to see this question and Eric Lippert's answer. A quick google search didn't show anything. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 19:44 | comment | added | user102937 | @GregHewgill: Note that not a single person during that discussion argued that Eric Lippert's answer was off-topic, or inappropriate in any way. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 19:09 | history | edited | user102937 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 123 characters in body
|
| Mar 3, 2012 at 19:04 | comment | added | user102937 | @GregHewgill: Yes, that was part of the epic battle. And the question to which I refer: Why do people think functional programming will catch on?. As you can see, it's not even in the database anymore. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 19:03 | comment | added | Greg Hewgill | I'd like to bring your attention to meta.stackexchange.com/a/51018/893 - "For God's sake, if a question has valuable content, just leave it!" (your words). | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 18:58 | history | edited | user102937 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 573 characters in body
|
| Mar 3, 2012 at 18:51 | comment | added | user102937 | @Gilles: There were a lot of upvotes on the question as well. 100 upvotes on only the answer would have kicked up the deletion requirement by five additional votes. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 18:48 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | I haven't seen the post in question, but it sounds like a case where the question should be edited to match the answer, not closed. But how is this relevant? If it was a bad question with one stellar answer, wouldn't it still have a fairly tame total score? | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 18:45 | comment | added | jscs | Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to think that it was peopled with morons. This is definitely useful context. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 18:45 | comment | added | user102937 | @Purmou: It kinda was. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 18:42 | history | edited | user102937 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 502 characters in body
|
| Mar 3, 2012 at 18:40 | comment | added | Someone | This sounds like an epic biblical story or something. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 18:34 | history | answered | user102937 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |