Timeline for What close reason to use for "Debug my Website" questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 24, 2014 at 14:01 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Jan 15, 2014 at 3:53 | comment | added | jmac | @Robert, there are two issues. One is preventing people from abusing close reasons. One is properly informing users why their question was closed and how to get it reopened. Removing close reasons will not prevent people from what they want to close, it will just weaken the signal to the users who have closed questions. I would love to provide stats showing we just shifted the problem but they aren't available, and until we understand the problem it's premature to suggest a solution, no? | |
| Jan 15, 2014 at 3:38 | comment | added | user102937 | @jmac: Then propose a new close reason in a [feature-request]. One that won't be abused by the community, or co-opted to mean something different that what the close reason actually says. | |
| Jan 15, 2014 at 1:58 | comment | added | jmac | I am with @Mark on this one. It doesn't make any sense to me that we would make a weaker signal to the person who's question is getting closed when the whole goal of the close changes was originally to make the close reasons easier to understand for those same users. Either there needs to be a better blurb for these reasons with a linked page that explains all the cases it covers, or we should really get a better-fitting close reason back. If I was told my question was unclear in these cases, I would be quite miffed (if you click on the link, it is very clear after all). | |
| Jan 15, 2014 at 0:34 | comment | added | user102937 | @MarkAmery: No, it doesn't. But it's all we have (none of the current close reasons are more specific than this). Post a detailed comment to the OP if you feel that they need further explanation. | |
| Jan 15, 2014 at 0:28 | comment | added | Mark Amery | -1 because I don't think this communicates the problem usefully to the question asker. | |
| Jan 14, 2014 at 17:58 | comment | added | TRiG | Well, for an old question, where the problematic code is no longer available, @TravisJ, I'd say the question is definitely unclear. | |
| Jan 14, 2014 at 17:57 | comment | added | user102937 | @TravisJ: "Can no longer be reproduced" works. The OP almost certainly fixed the problem with the page by then. | |
| Jan 14, 2014 at 17:56 | comment | added | Travis J | But what about for older questions? | |
| Jan 14, 2014 at 17:56 | vote | accept | TRiG | ||
| Feb 25, 2014 at 1:30 | |||||
| Jan 14, 2014 at 17:55 | comment | added | Travis J | I think unclear fits best for new questions as well. If the details of the issue were included then the question could be viable. | |
| Jan 14, 2014 at 17:54 | history | answered | user102937 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |