Timeline for A grace period of one day to award the bounty after expiration (without remaining featured, of course)
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 2022 at 0:09 | history | edited | PolyGeo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 128 characters in body
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Sep 23, 2011 at 20:54 | vote | accept | Tobias Kienzler | ||
| Jun 23, 2011 at 7:38 | history | edited | Jeff Atwood |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 15, 2011 at 10:30 | comment | added | Tobias Kienzler | @DavidM: thanks, I like the idea of bumping the expiration on the appearance of new answer, maybe you should narrow your feature-request down on that so it's no longer considered a dupe | |
| Jun 15, 2011 at 5:31 | comment | added | David | See this question which was closed as a duplicate of this. It also suggests that active questions, ie ones which are being actively answered even very close to the bounty expiration, bump the expiration forward a bit. It's a sign the bounty's working if people are answering, and so it shouldn't be closed / ended right when it's doing its job. | |
| Jun 15, 2011 at 2:22 | answer | added | jscs | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 15, 2011 at 1:58 | answer | added | sarnold | timeline score: 31 | |
| Jan 10, 2011 at 13:59 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| Jan 6, 2011 at 4:20 | history | edited | Jeff Atwood |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 6, 2011 at 4:20 | answer | added | Jeff Atwood | timeline score: 34 | |
| Jan 3, 2011 at 13:17 | history | bounty started | Tobias Kienzler | ||
| Oct 20, 2010 at 10:13 | comment | added | Tobias Kienzler | @Grace: That's reasonable indeed. So only the difference of a "extend button" vs default behaviour is a remaining difference, which is an important to me. I don't know about the "prevent new answers from being considered" though, since without the extend button I'd really like to consider rewarding someone who posted a new answer despite the question no longer being featured. | |
| Oct 19, 2010 at 14:55 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | It's not explicitly stated as such, but if we consider the quote "One more thing I thought of... probably this 'bounty extension' should prevent new answers from being considered - or the process could end up repeating itself.", then if new answers aren't to be considered then there's no point to keeping it featured, aye? | |
| Oct 19, 2010 at 14:46 | comment | added | Tobias Kienzler | @Grace Note: I really didn't get a "but don't feature it any more" message there, but also I request this extension as default behaviour instead of having to remember clicking a button at the right time | |
| Oct 19, 2010 at 14:39 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | The duplicate link was that one; the author rolled it back without assessing that George's question is pretty much exactly what both you and the other user want. The only difference is that George says "extend" instead of "grace period", but reading what his question actually says is pretty clear that the intent is not for having more bounty time, but to have that extra 24 hours to evaluate last-minute submissions or just plain read over everything from the 7 days. | |
| Oct 19, 2010 at 14:34 | history | asked | Tobias Kienzler | CC BY-SA 2.5 |