Timeline for Show embattled deleted questions to the public as if they were 10k+ users
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 24, 2014 at 13:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Jul 14, 2012 at 18:06 | comment | added | Bill the Lizard | Tagging as status-declined as per Kevin's answer here meta.stackexchange.com/a/136267/1288 | |
| Jul 14, 2012 at 18:05 | history | edited | Bill the Lizard |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 6, 2012 at 4:24 | comment | added | Jarrod Dixon | We're taking a hard look at this internally, perhaps as a stopgap for your other proposal. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 0:52 | answer | added | Aarobot | timeline score: 15 | |
| Mar 5, 2012 at 8:21 | comment | added | Pekka | @Ben it would be highly unorthodox, but I don't think it would be wrong. If we want to phase those questions out from the Google index, it doesn't have to be that way. | |
| Mar 5, 2012 at 6:53 | comment | added | Benjol | +1 Ever more awesome ideas from Pekka! Pekka for president! | |
| Mar 5, 2012 at 0:36 | comment | added | Zelda | Ehhh why send a 404 when the link exists publicly? You're breaking the semantics of the 404 code. | |
| Mar 5, 2012 at 0:32 | history | edited | John Saunders | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Mar 4, 2012 at 22:52 | comment | added | darron | It's not always about rep. This is easier to argue and it's much less of a slap in the face. As I said in a different place, to me this would say "This content doesn't fit what we're trying to encourage" instead of "We think your contribution is crap and we can't stand that our name was ever on the page at all" | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 20:33 | comment | added | Adam Rackis | @Pekka - then again, creating this fifth state -- locked, big historical banner, no rep garnered -- would really help with the archive implementation later. If we could get all the popular, fun questions to slowly but surely be moved into this state, we could move them en mass to the archive later. | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 20:19 | comment | added | Adam Rackis |
whether rep should be granted for those questions -- I fear you may be right about that. Pity that fear of such silliness dictates policy like that.
|
|
| Mar 4, 2012 at 20:15 | comment | added | Pekka | @Adam yeah, this might indeed help things! I see your point re the colour scheme, but I think the "deleted" state (albeit ugly) would be ideal for a number of reasons - it's already there, and removing the grey is trivial for anybody with a bit of HTML knowledge. A userscript could also be whipped up. I fear that adding a fifth state besides active, closed, locked, and deleted would be confusing, and lead to further discussions (like whether rep should be granted for those questions and answers....) | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 19:44 | comment | added | Adam Rackis | @Pekka - I think we're getting close to a rational solution to this fiasco. For old popular questions I'd like to see the historical significance banner made more prominent, combined with a new, different color scheme (though preferably not the ugly gray deleted theme). I'm quite confident SE engineers are smart enough to make this content visible without being a broken window. A heartfelt +1 for helping to come up with a rational solution to this that doesn't involve making good content inaccessible. | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 17:37 | history | edited | Pekka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| Mar 4, 2012 at 16:58 | history | edited | Pekka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 117 characters in body
|
| Mar 4, 2012 at 7:48 | comment | added | Cody Gray | Similar to what Won't describes here. I think applying it to just old questions might be a mistake. But old questions that are now off-topic and not a good fit for SO would be good candidates. | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 3:36 | answer | added | joran | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 1:41 | comment | added | Pekka | @Michael I thought you meant a new locked mode. I think Deleted > locked :) "deleted" in the sense of "in the recycle bin, might vanish any time" makes it clearer that this question is really no longer a part of SO. (Even though it may stay in the bin indefinitely) | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 1:35 | comment | added | Michael Mrozek | @Pekka'sReputationBordello The locked mode I'm referring to actually already exists :). For example, here | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 1:34 | history | edited | Pekka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 25 characters in body
|
| Mar 4, 2012 at 1:31 | comment | added | Pekka | @Michael I agree it is a tiny bit confusing that some deleted questions just vanish and some remain, but a banner might help clear that up as a courtesy to the community. I like the idea of lowering the "you can see deleted questions" threshold better than adding another "locked" mode, mainly for its simplicity (because it's just tweaking something that already exists).... | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 1:30 | answer | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 1:27 | history | edited | Pekka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
| Mar 4, 2012 at 1:26 | comment | added | Pekka | @animuson yeah, there will always be some argument... but I find that one easy to refute. The stuff is still deleted, nothing changes except that the rep threshold is lowered to 0 for some cases where it's in the public interest. | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 1:22 | history | edited | Pekka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 24 characters in body
|
| Mar 4, 2012 at 1:20 | comment | added | animuson StaffMod | Then people will just continue arguing that they should still have the reputation for the deleted question because it's still visible on SO. | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 1:19 | comment | added | Pekka | @Shog scanning the list of status codes 410 looks interesting too, might fit better | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 1:18 | comment | added | sehe | alternatively, we could have the stuff stay there, but close the questions and correct for the disproportianate votes (e.g. set the Q on 5 votes and CW it). That could work | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 1:18 | comment | added | Michael Mrozek | Overloading deletion like that seems confusing, but somebody was talking recently about changing how "locked for historical reasons" questions look, to make it more obvious that they're closed down. I could see making questions locked for that reason show up this way (or in some special way -- making it look exactly like deleted questions is probably confusing) | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 1:16 | history | edited | Pekka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 24 characters in body
|
| Mar 4, 2012 at 1:16 | comment | added | Shog9 | I don't hate this. 404ing might be dangerous though. | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 1:11 | history | asked | Pekka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |