SVN Revision Version in .NET Assembly w/ out CC.NET

I answered a question - with a valid answer that addressed the question. However, a moderator converted it to a comment and notated it by leaving a link to the FAQ which seems to imply my answer did not address the question. (it did)

Why are the moderators wasting time on things like this when there are more important issues to fix? This seems to be an incorrect application of moving an answer to a comment.

How does this get fixed?

NOTE I added an answer because I was looking for the same thing as the OP. When I found something better than all the other answers I decided to add the solution i found. (the solution I found was created after the original question was posted.)

it was due for an update to reflect more choices/better choices for people. And from what I recall, Jeff, joel, et.al, WANTED things to be updated and did not want stagnant content.

If moderators can't understand that succinct answers are useful then perhaps they should reconsider their status as moderators...

It appears that the link loads slowly and some people see innappropriate content on the page. I do not. So in any case I made a new post with better content and an alternative github url

  • That link about the FAQ is automatically inserted – random Feb 11 '12 at 2:43
  • Feel free to rollback if you feel strongly, but I believe I have improved your question, and recommend leaving it. – Andrew Barber Feb 11 '12 at 2:43
  • I understand - but it is useless since I have to guess the reason - and it appears the person did not like the fact that is was little more than a link. However, it is a useful one and added information/functionality not found in any of the answers. the value of a post has little to do with how many words are in it... – tim Feb 11 '12 at 2:44
  • your edits are fine. The message is essentially the same. I remember now why I stopped coming to SO as often as i used to. In trying to get the site back to its status as a useful tool there are friendly casualties... – tim Feb 11 '12 at 2:46
  • That link in the converted comment is down. What was even on it? – random Feb 11 '12 at 2:46
  • @random It's a blog post about using WhenTheVersion to have VS use date-based version numbers on builds. It has a section on Subversion support, too. Seems related. – Andrew Barber Feb 11 '12 at 2:49
  • It works for me. – tim Feb 11 '12 at 2:49
  • I'm not here to waste my time or other people's time. I have been using SO for a while and I think my hit points status is sufficient to show I can play by the rules (boat programming aside) - If I have to add fluff to answers just to get it past moderators i won't contribute. The comment is so useless because people aren't looking in comments to get answers. This kind of behavior seems irresponsible. I understand the need to keep quality answers, but some kind of checking should be done before such an action is taken... – tim Feb 11 '12 at 2:54
  • 3
    Okay, the link is working now. But it's covered in blogspam, dongs and weight loss ads with a link to someplace else with the content as a snippet to BigResource. And no, not on an infected machine – random Feb 11 '12 at 2:54
  • Or maybe not - mods can do what they want I guess. In any case, I will likely not take the time next time to add something useful to a question that needs updating next time I see one. It is not worth my time to have to fight the system to leave useful content. This site needs useful people and content - not more junk. – tim Feb 11 '12 at 2:54
  • @random - re: spam and crap on blog - Um, not on my machine... I would not have added it if that was the case. – tim Feb 11 '12 at 2:55
  • @random I actually don't see any ads on the page linked or the 'About' page. The site's loading very slowly now, though. It's run by a SO member: stackoverflow.com/users/5662/andrew – Andrew Barber Feb 11 '12 at 3:02
  • Hmm. I see issues with response times now for the link. In that case the moderator probably did the right thing. Odd. I put in the github link now as well... – tim Feb 11 '12 at 3:02
  • I take back the barbs about overzealous now - if the issue was a slow link. that is an issue. I did put a github link on a new answer and i will edit that answer to remove the comments about mods – tim Feb 11 '12 at 3:03
  • Your new answer is much better, @tim. After you edited it, that is. ;) – Andrew Barber Feb 11 '12 at 3:06

No, you can't reverse the conversion. But you can flag for the answer to be undeleted by a moderator after addressing the issue of why it was converted in the first place.

In this instance, and in most, it was a link only answer.

These are volatile, leave the answer content off-site and rely on the good nature and uptime of the external link to not flash your face full of genitals or other such weight loss drama.

It is better to summarise or paraphrase the site or article you're referencing in addition to dropping the link of attribution for a complete and meaty answer.

  • 1
    Sweet, delicious, meaty answers! – Andrew Barber Feb 11 '12 at 3:53

Your original answer (which was converted to a comment) was just a link to another site and not much else. We don't like link only answers here, they're fragile and we're constantly cleaning up broken links.

We prefer that you summarise the content found on the other end of the link. Then at least if the link breaks, or for whatever reason the destination is blocked by an overzealous corporate content filter, the answer can stand on it's own and at least provide some clues that the reader may use to further investigate.

Why are the moderators wasting time on things like this when there are more important issues to fix? This seems to be an incorrect application of moving an answer to a comment.

This is what we do, the community flags such posts and we make a decision as to whether the answer has enough information to stand on its own. Stack Overflow is about building a canon of high quality information, not a list of links to other places.

If moderators can't understand that succinct answers are useful then perhaps they should reconsider their status as moderators...

Succinct answers are fine, but they need to provide actual information. A link only answer isn't a succinct answer, it's just a url that tells the reader nothing.

  • Thanks - that is useful information to me. it would have been helpful to put a comment to that effect, but I understand the issues/problems. You will not that at least 2 other answers there also have links and very little else. I suppose I just followed that style without thinking much about it – tim Feb 11 '12 at 3:50
  • 2
    @tim - no worries. Go ahead and flag these types of answers. Also when you do see them, have a look at the question. We often see these link only answers in poll/list/shopping/favourite-thing type questions (you know the sort of thing - What is the best editor...). If it's one of them, flag the question instead so it can be dealt with. Thanks. – Kev Feb 11 '12 at 4:05

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .