Timeline for Implement the reopen-hammer for non-duplicates
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 1, 2018 at 12:37 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | @ypercubeᵀᴹ Yep | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:37 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | If it deserves that vote, then that is good. It will give OP the opportunity to clarify. It will usually mean less downvotes since less visitors are coming by. It will prevent speculative answers, which don't help OP in any way. All gain. No loss. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:36 | comment | added | ypercubeᵀᴹ | @PatrickHofman I'm not sure I understand your answer. Do you say that you agree with the proposal but you'd prefer even more power for gold badgers? | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:35 | comment | added | Hannah Vernon | I don't agree with the ability to close a question for any reason. Many gold badge holders on Stack Overflow having the ability to close a question as "unclear" would do that for almost every new question the site receives. That is not a reflection of the question quality, but rather a reflection of many senior users impatience with new users. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:34 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | I don't disagree with that, as you can read in my answer. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:33 | comment | added | Hannah Vernon | Since I started answering questions on Database Administrators many years ago, I've come to the conclusion that even bad questions are better than no questions. And the vast majority of times, bad questions can be made into good or excellent questions once we take the time to understand the true motivation of the poster. Being able to quickly re-open a closed post that has been improved to the point where it's clear and concise will go a long way towards achieving the goal of answering questions and helping people. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:26 | history | answered | Patrick Hofman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |