Timeline for Etiquette for posting civil and informative comments
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
47 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jul 29, 2012 at 20:07 | history | edited | user102937 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 70 characters in body
|
| Jul 24, 2012 at 17:18 | history | edited | user102937 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 64 characters in body
|
| Jul 24, 2012 at 17:17 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @robert I guess we can add some words there. I read it as "Do you have a link, citation, or reference for the claim you are making in this post?" You could also ask Monica in her answer, below. It's from her post. | |
| Jul 24, 2012 at 16:16 | comment | added | user102937 | @JeffAtwood: What does "Do you have a source" mean? | |
| Jul 24, 2012 at 16:14 | history | edited | user102937 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 479 characters in body; deleted 12 characters in body
|
| Jul 24, 2012 at 16:13 | comment | added | Lee Louviere | @Grunch There's a difference between Politically Correct (PCBS), and courtesy. "SO is not your personal research assistant. [Link]" is a little harsh and obtuse. It's easy enough to say, "Please clarify question, there's not enough initial research. [Link]". | |
| Jul 22, 2012 at 6:46 | history | edited | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 79 characters in body; added 5 characters in body; added 76 characters in body
|
| Jul 20, 2012 at 21:31 | history | edited | user160606 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added info explaining why comments should be more informative
|
| Jun 30, 2012 at 20:23 | comment | added | Shog9 | @Donal: well, chat is an alternative. Doesn't mean you have to like it or use it, but it's always there if you need it. | |
| Jun 30, 2012 at 0:50 | comment | added | Donal Fellows | Why is there an assumption that Chat is an alternative? I hate it and won't use it. This is partly explained by the fact that I'm mostly active in less-common tags. The only way to have a sustained chat in some of those tags would be to disrupt other chat communities to try to draw their members in, but that's likely to just make people angry. I don't want to do that; many of them are my friends. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:43 | history | edited | user102937 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 16 characters in body
|
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:43 | comment | added | Shog9 | @Robert: no, although tag-specific stuff is welcome. And btw - thanks again for your patience with this. You're doing a lot to try and solve some really sticky problems, and I appreciate it. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:43 | comment | added | Josh Darnell | Oh, ok. Sorry, I missed the change-up on this post. "...I'm beginning to lose the will" - Sorry, man. I'm sure this has been a frustrating few days =( | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:42 | comment | added | user102937 | @Shog9: I thought that one was tag-specific. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:42 | comment | added | Shog9 | There's already one here, @Robert: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/136609/… | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:40 | comment | added | user102937 | @jadarnel27: This post is not meant to be a repository for examples of acceptable comments in all situations. I might do a post like that, but to be honest, I'm beginning to lose the will. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:38 | history | edited | user102937 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1634 characters in body
|
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:33 | comment | added | Josh Darnell | "Discussion of community behavior or site policies; please use meta instead." - So is it out of line to post a (polite) comment asking someone to elaborate on a link-only answer? (Or am I reading that incorrectly?) Note: I did this earlier today and got a rather... negative response. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:28 | comment | added | Shog9 | @Robert: I'm not a big fan of unnecessary indirection. I allocate strings on the stack. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:25 | comment | added | John Dibling | @RobertHarvey: SO isn't a hostile place -- that's my point. Of course, try to make a difference by participating on MSO and disagreeing with the "powers that be", and all bets may be off... ;) | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:24 | history | edited | user102937 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 226 characters in body
|
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:22 | comment | added | user102937 | @Shog9: I take it that you're not an advocate of linking any external advice at all (except maybe the faq and how to ask). | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:20 | comment | added | Shog9 | @Robert: yeah, this could all be pared down considerably, but I already wrote a lot of it in the equiv FAQ so I figured that was a good place to start (I'd like to copy some / all of this back there once we're done) | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:19 | comment | added | user102937 | @Shog9: You are a wordy bastard. :P I should have just posted about the tone, if this is already covered adequately elsewhere. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:17 | comment | added | user102937 | Not to put too fine a point on it, but users should leave because they are unwilling to reform, not because SO is a hostile place. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:16 | history | edited | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
There's actually already a FAQ for the first three sections... Added constructive advice for accept rate (needs to be shorter though)
|
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:12 | comment | added | John Dibling | SO has been my research assistant for approaching 4 years, too. And I, like you, rarely ask questions. But there is a big difference between searching on SO for an answer and posting a question asking SO to do the work for them. In the latter case, when someone posts a question that boils down to "plz to send teh codez" that asker needs to be educated how to use the site. If they don't want to use the site that way, they should be encouraged to leave. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 19:10 | comment | added | John Dibling | No, @Shog9. You're way off base here. You assume that I make these 1-line link comments in an attempt to be passive-aggressive, and lay the blame for the bad message on someone else who wrote those words. I don't. First off, they aren't someone else's words -- I helped edit that post, and one of the answers in WSOiN that I most frequently linked to was mine. Second, I made the conscious decision to contribute to this site under my own name, not some handle. I take full responsibility for every word I write, and I know that sometimes people don't like what I say. (Like now, for ex.) | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 18:54 | comment | added | Shog9 | @John: "SO is not your personal research assistant" isn't just bad - it's a straight-up lie. SO has been my research assistant for approaching four years, and I rarely even ask questions. Oh, I know, the emphasis is on "personal" and the linked answer explained it all in great detail... But seriously, WTF? If you're posting a comment to effectively say, "Show your research" then cut the crap and write "show your research". It's shorter, to the point, and doesn't play games with links that let you argue you weren't being intentionally obtuse because someone else explained it. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 18:46 | comment | added | Zelda | Don't like the wording "What tone should I strike in comments?"; very manufactured. Trying to think up something better and failing though. "How polite should I be" comes to mind but is stupid and also artifical | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 18:40 | comment | added | John Dibling | @RobertHarvey: Then I'll state it plainly. The powers that be are wrong. All this will do is create a site where the worst, most trite questions are the ones that are asked and answered. The experts who spend many hours a day trying to help this site grow, people like me, will be driven away by the lack of quality signal and their inability to make a direct impact on the signal quality. This will diminish SO's ability to answer the hardest, most interesting questions, and ultimately make it less relevant in the world. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 18:32 | comment | added | Remou | @RobertHarvey Thanks, that is nearly a year ago, and the tags where I am, I can either engage in lengthy chat or be rude. I am going to be gored by a dilemma, I just know it. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 18:29 | comment | added | user102937 | @JohnDibling: I agree with you, but the powers-that-be do not. SE wants warm-fuzzy. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 18:29 | comment | added | user102937 | @Remou: Here it is: meta.stackexchange.com/q/100291/102937 | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 18:28 | comment | added | John Dibling | -1: IMO "Stack Overflow is not your personal research assistant" is not, in any way, a bad comment. It gets the point across, and if it links to elaborative text, it helps users we want to retain learn how to participate. It's not all warm-fuzzy like the alternative you've suggested, but not-warm-fuzzy != rude. Banning terse comments would only serve to make SO an overly-sensitive wasteland of political correctness. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 18:24 | comment | added | user102937 | @Remou: That's a separate problem, and one which I believe has at least one feature request posted here. I personally think that, if you have a certain amount of rep, you should be able to invite anyone to chat, regardless of their rep. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 18:22 | comment | added | Remou | "Don't engage in off-topic conversation, or get involved in lengthy discussions with other community members. That's what Chat is for." In that case, can I donate some rep to a deserving new person to make it easy to chat? | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 18:21 | comment | added | assylias | Would this question be the right place for a list of popular meta-information comments similar to the two examples you have already given (in a separate answer)? | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 18:14 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by user102937 | ||
| Jun 29, 2012 at 18:11 | history | edited | user102937 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 characters in body; deleted 14 characters in body
|
| Jun 29, 2012 at 18:05 | history | edited | user102937 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 69 characters in body; deleted 4 characters in body; added 3 characters in body; added 3 characters in body; added 4 characters in body
|
| Jun 29, 2012 at 18:03 | comment | added | Manishearth | @daniel Etiquette. Not rules. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 17:59 | comment | added | Daniel | "Use upvotes to say thanks instead of comments." Or did you mean that the comment shouldn't solely consist of thanks? | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 17:59 | comment | added | user102937 | I didn't say that you can't. Anyway, that's always been the case. | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 17:59 | comment | added | Daniel | So you can't say thanks in comments, either, now? | |
| Jun 29, 2012 at 17:55 | history | answered | user102937 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |