Timeline for Four-year old question with 48 upvotes and 81 stars just got deleted
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 27, 2013 at 2:57 | comment | added | Chris Moschini | Many of the pro-delete arguments here say it should be moved off this site to a Wiki. That seems fair if (1) There's a feature to do just that and (2) It leaves a placeholder pointing to where it was moved to so that useful discussions on and off this site linking to it don't lose an important resource. In the meantime deleting it harms reasonable use cases. It also deletes info that could be very relevant to, for example, someone maintaining old systems or an IT environment stuck on an old browser. Niche but not a good reason to wipe it out. | |
| Mar 26, 2013 at 17:29 | comment | added | Servy | @meyumer The fact that it was once suitable is not relevant. It's not suitable now. Closing doesn't exist to support that at all. It is a mechanism of informing the question asker and the any viewers that the question needs to be improved before it can be answered. Historical locks (as opposed to other locks, such as content disputes) do exist for this case (valuable content that is no longer in site scope). This answer, along with my previous comment, explains exactly why it shouldn't be used here. It is for very valuable exceptional cases. This just isn't sufficiently valuable. | |
| Mar 26, 2013 at 17:27 | comment | added | George Stocker Mod | The problem with a historical lock is that it freezes a question's content in time. If we lock it, you can't update it. There will approach a time where all that information is irrelevant. | |
| Mar 26, 2013 at 17:25 | comment | added | meyumer | @Servy Well, it was a suitable content for SO at the time the question and answers were posted. People spent time to put that content out there, others found it helpful, linked to it, etc... That's why there are locked and closed content around right? Once the rules/format of the site changes, we can simply lock, close or seal the content but we can still leave it there. | |
| Mar 26, 2013 at 17:08 | comment | added | Servy | @meyumer The content isn't being deleted because it's out of date. It's being deleted because it's not a question that fits SO's scope and guidelines. The fact that the content is out of date and no longer of particularly high value as it stands is simply why an exception isn't being made to not delete the content. The bar for a post being an exception to SO guidelines and staying around is very high, and it's high for a reason. This content simply doesn't meet that bar. It either needs to be re-worked (or even re-asked) in a way that conforms to SO's guidelines, or go to some other site. | |
| Mar 26, 2013 at 17:07 | comment | added | BoltClock's a Unicorn Mod | @meyumer: "Most people will digest the information carefully considering the date it is posted." I admire your faith. | |
| Mar 26, 2013 at 17:04 | comment | added | Rachel | I don't mind out-of-date information providing there is an up-to-date comment pointing out that it's out of date. There is so much information online, and if I'm considering doing something I found in a 2-year old blog article, then I find it extremely useful to see a SO answer and comment explaining that the information is out of date, and/or to use the more current XYZ replacement. | |
| Mar 26, 2013 at 8:16 | comment | added | Bart | @meyumer An answer clearly being marked with a date shows only that..a date. It provides no information as to whether or not the content is still valid. I'm not entirely sure we should go for deletion there, but we could do with some more aggressive (though constructive) curation on content like that. | |
| Mar 26, 2013 at 8:00 | comment | added | meyumer | @Yi Jiang Still does not justify content deletion. Worst of all, a link is invalidated. There might be tons of outer sources linking to the content. A post suddenly disappearing will result in dangling pointers. It is better leave it alone. Most people will digest the information carefully considering the date it is posted. I see no problem leaving a historical lock, since the question and answers are all clearly marked with dates. Even Google search is able to list results based on post date (a.k.a. freshness). So, the search engine issue you are concerned with is also not that serious. | |
| Mar 26, 2013 at 7:01 | comment | added | Yi Jiang | @meyumer Historical lock means the answer and question cannot be edited. That is the whole point of a historical lock. While it's true that posts can be kept up to date, as mentioned in the answer the current accepted answer is three years out of date, and after 4000 views no attempt has been made to actually update it. Stack Exchange doesn't work well for content like this. Moving it to a wiki like MDN is a better option. | |
| Mar 26, 2013 at 6:34 | history | edited | Lance Roberts | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Mar 26, 2013 at 6:34 | comment | added | meyumer | -1: Outdated information does not necessarily make a popular post a candidate for deletion. There are many examples of popular questions and answers that are updated and made current either by their authors, or others that edit them. It is important to keep as most as we can, but also make sure we update and remove outdated information. | |
| Mar 26, 2013 at 6:33 | comment | added | Dan Dascalescu | What is better, no information at all, or information that can be brought up to date? I'd be happy to help bring the answers up-to-date, as you can see from my recent edits and answer and "Revival" badges. | |
| Mar 26, 2013 at 6:32 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | This is a good point, maybe we need a mod who groks CSS to merge the still valid stuff with a different post, or maybe not lock it and encourage the posters (and others through Meta) to clean it up and make it more current. | |
| Mar 26, 2013 at 6:19 | history | answered | Yi Jiang | CC BY-SA 3.0 |