Timeline for Introduce a "general reference" close reason
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
38 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 21 at 21:24 | history | edited | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fix broken image again. Reupload to SE host so it doesn't have to be constantly fixed every time the blog host changes.
|
| Jan 18, 2021 at 11:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://blog.stackoverflow.com with https://blog.stackoverflow.com
|
|
| S Jun 5, 2017 at 5:56 | history | suggested | muru | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
updated image lin
|
| Jun 5, 2017 at 5:03 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 5, 2017 at 5:56 | |||||
| S Oct 2, 2015 at 19:37 | history | edited | ᔕᖺᘎᕊ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed broken image and inlined link
|
| S Oct 2, 2015 at 19:37 | history | suggested | Nathan Tuggy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed broken image and inlined link
|
| Oct 2, 2015 at 19:22 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 2, 2015 at 19:37 | |||||
| Sep 16, 2013 at 13:25 | comment | added | glenviewjeff | I just encountered this on the English stack exchange. I think this is an absolutely terrible idea. I believe that one of the best aspects of the Stack Exchange sites is that they provide a centralized repository of information about a topic that allows users to rate and chime in with their opinions. english.stackexchange.com/q/3885/29008 | |
| Jan 26, 2013 at 19:21 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | The flow chart is great and looks perfect to me. It's such a shame that this was all refused. I admit I haven't listened to the podcast, but I don't see any particular downsides convincingly presented on this Q&A. Almost everyone seems to want this. | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 22:22 | comment | added | Pekka | @Jeff ping in case you're interested General Reference questions create low-quality dead ends for Googlers | |
| Oct 25, 2012 at 23:59 | comment | added | Pekka | I tried to re-argue the case with Joel a while back, but got no reply. | |
| Apr 19, 2012 at 17:53 | history | edited | Charles | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
The evaluation ended months ago, update wording to indicate this and stop tricking people that don't scroll to the bottom to see the result...
|
| Jan 4, 2012 at 15:21 | comment | added | casperOne Mod | @BenBrocka There's two issues there. If the question is being closed, then then question is being closed. Whether or not questions should be closed as "too trivial" is another matter entirely. I think that moderation can help with this. If a question is closed as too trivial, then it can be reopened through moderating (flag the content and then a mod can open the question up again and new links submitted, if needed). | |
| Jan 4, 2012 at 15:13 | comment | added | Zelda | @TheGhostofChristmasPast Link rot and general SEO issues are a huge problem with this, see for example the fall of Dive into HTML5/ect. Just because an answer is easy to find today doesn't mean that site will be easy to find in a month or year. Stack Exchange we can at least know will be around as long as...Stack Exchange exists, so actually having the answers here is the best way to benefit the community. Even worse, what if someone starts deciding Experts Exchange is a general reference? | |
| Jan 4, 2012 at 13:02 | history | edited | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 355 characters in body
|
| Jan 3, 2012 at 14:36 | comment | added | casperOne Mod | @JeffAtwood How is link-rot addressed when closed as "too trivial"? The close reason is now dependent on a resource external to Stack Exchange. Additionally, what's good for one SE site is generally good for all; assuming the link-rot issue is not a massive one, roll this out; it's already in the system and Joel's objections aside, the work has already been done, there's no reason the rest of the network shouldn't benefit from this. | |
| Aug 10, 2011 at 22:53 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @jeff Joel is strongly opposed; you'll have to take it up with him. There is some risk of extremely literal minded people cough programmers cough who will abuse such a close reason. | |
| Aug 3, 2011 at 21:30 | comment | added | Jeff Mercado | How's the evaluation period going? Any chances of it being available for any other sites now? | |
| May 31, 2011 at 20:05 | comment | added | user7116 | @user118150: lazy is no excuse. Besides, most folks are already voting to close these questions, just using less specific reasons. | |
| May 31, 2011 at 19:59 | comment | added | Pekka | @Adam the subjectivity of what is a general reference question is going to be the greatest danger, I agree. But a user who is not able to find the string capitalization function in the PHP manual is maybe not cut out for programming in the first place. Accommodating these users with anything more than a manual link or a tutorial is a noble but tiresome enterprise. Plus, in my experience, users who have a specific problem understanding a specific part of the manual and ask accordingly (instead of a brain-dead "i want to do xyz") are treated very well on SO, no matter how basic the issue. | |
| May 31, 2011 at 19:45 | comment | added | Pekka | @user the close reason is a polite version of both "RTFM" and "Go Google". What's wrong with that, especially since the user is even given the correct manual link? | |
| May 31, 2011 at 19:34 | history | edited | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 217 characters in body
|
| May 31, 2011 at 15:13 | comment | added | user118150 | I still disagree that "you can google it" is a legitimate reason for using this close ta. And I'd argue that there is enough confusion over this to argue against implementing it. Frankly, the way Pekka and Sklivvz want to use it, why don't you just save time and call it the 'lmgtfy' close reason. | |
| May 29, 2011 at 19:15 | comment | added | Pekka | @yms ah, fair enough, I forgot that that part came later. | |
| May 29, 2011 at 19:10 | comment | added | yms | @Pekka's other trolling account I wrote that comment long before the proposal of posting the link to the manual. That sounds fair, comment deleted. | |
| May 29, 2011 at 18:54 | comment | added | Pekka | @yms I see nothing elitist in this. I don't see why the site should cater to people who can't even be bothered to read up on the most basic basics of their programming language, or stuff that is trivial to Google using the exact text they put into the question title. Plus, the OP does get an answer that will help them - the link to the manual. But the question will be closed (and can eventually be deleted) instead of cluttering the question base | |
| May 25, 2011 at 22:52 | comment | added | Sklivvz | @use: for evolution/creationism, talkorigins is a whole referenced and complete site on it, for example. Most questions have a direct answer there. | |
| May 25, 2011 at 22:30 | comment | added | user118150 | @Sklivvz: What is the relevant "user manual" for Climate Change and Creationism? If this tag is interpreted as "this is obvious/unworthy of discussion", then I have alot more sympathy for the view that it's just going to be used to impose elitist arrogance on SE. If it's a standin for "Use a dictionary to see what the word means" or "Please look at php.net to see the parameters for that function", then it's fine. | |
| May 25, 2011 at 20:59 | comment | added | Sklivvz | @use: we have our large share of really obvious questions (typically asking about climate change and creationism). | |
| May 25, 2011 at 18:30 | comment | added | user118150 | @Sklivvz: How will that even work on Skeptics? The community there has an incredibly strong anti-logic/pro-reference bias. I'd be interested to see how "close questions that have a standard reference source" meets up with "all answers must essentially be links to standard reference sources". | |
| May 17, 2011 at 18:34 | comment | added | Charles |
@yms, almost every one of the PHP questions linked above is answerable simply by looking up the function in question in the PHP manual. Expecting someone to at least have fired up Google or referenced the manual isn't something I'd consider "elitist discrimination." They all have dupes, but the class of question is so horrible and prolific that it's impossible to find an exact match. For example, there are nearly 2000 questions about strtotime in the PHP tag. Being able to close questions that can be answered through simple manual reading is going to be a win for overall question quality.
|
|
| May 3, 2011 at 20:18 | comment | added | Sklivvz | @Jeff, please let us have it on Skeptics... | |
| May 2, 2011 at 3:21 | comment | added | gnostradamus | I really hope this comes to SO soon. I feel my niche is getting cluttered. | |
| Apr 25, 2011 at 20:53 | comment | added | Pekka | @Jeff yeah, I see the point, and some danger of it getting used as a back door "RTFM" on valid questions. But the potential benefit would be huge... I'd be happy to see this do a test run on SO for a few weeks, with mods and 10ks keeping a close eye on what gets closed. | |
| Apr 25, 2011 at 20:48 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @pekka Joel is very concerned it will be abused. I have concerns as well, since many programmers are of the "cannot abide a single atom of duplication in the omniverse" OCD variety | |
| Apr 25, 2011 at 19:37 | comment | added | Pekka |
I hope the evaluation works well. There is a constant stream of stuff that could be closed with this. If you force the first closer to suggest a reference URL (like with dupes), everyone including the OP will be happy, but another pointless duplicate will have been prevented from attracting pointless use this function: answers.
|
|
| Apr 23, 2011 at 7:13 | vote | accept | Pekka | ||
| Apr 22, 2011 at 20:36 | history | answered | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 3.0 |