At the time of this writing, this post is locked, with a comment sending people off to Meta SO, but not to any specific post.
This is rather annoying. IMHO locking a post should require/encourage linking to a meta discussion about this post.
-
I don't think that referring to a certain post would do any good. Given that this is one engine used on all sites, linking their against a post seems like a problem.– Time Traveling BobbyJun 22, 2012 at 9:39
-
6+1. It could at least link to What is a locked post IMO.– MattJun 22, 2012 at 9:41
-
2The formulation is indeed confusing. I have seen people in the past coming over to Meta expecting there to be an ongoing discussion on the issue. Perhaps it can be reformulated to indicate that if a discussion about this is necessary, it should take place on Meta.– BartJun 22, 2012 at 10:20
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
I always understood the sentence as meaning:
- Visit meta to see if there is a question about the specific question.
- If there isn't any question on meta about that question, ask it.
To me, visit meta doesn't mean on meta there is surely the information I am looking for, but it is the place where such information should be asked.
Probably, "For more info visit meta." could be removed, as users are supposed to know to ask on meta, in those cases. It still makes sense to use that sentence in the case it is an answer to be locked, to avoid users post comments to the question, asking why the answer has been locked.
Instead of visit, the sentence could use consult; IMO, it would be clearer the users are not just supposed to look at the meta site, but eventually ask a question, if they don't find any useful information in existing questions. (It is what I would expect users do, when they visit a meta site, and they don't find the information they were looking for.)
answered Jun 22, 2012 at 12:17
-
-
1@lanzz: There is more info here, we've got a ton of questions about locked posts. If there is no directly related question to it, it can be asked. That's like linking "More Info Here" to the FAQ and the contact information. Jun 22, 2012 at 12:41
-
Not if the previous sentence also implies that there are "ongoing disputes" somewhere. Which, it turns out is not where people should be looking for more info? How does that make sense?– lanzzJun 22, 2012 at 12:44
-
1well at least they will be less inclined to ask the question on SO Jun 22, 2012 at 12:55
-
@lanzz The meta site is the place where such information should be looked, and it is also the place where such information should be asked. If you have any question about a post you see in a Stack Exchange site, you should ask it in its meta site.– apadernoJun 22, 2012 at 13:37
-
So, the point is that as long as the message is pointing in the right direction, it is OK to be as misleading as possible?– lanzzJun 22, 2012 at 13:52
-
@lanzz To me, it is not misleading. The meta site is the place where to look for more information about locked posts, and it is also the place to ask for more information. The link is not for a completely unrelated site.– apadernoJun 22, 2012 at 13:55
-
2"while disputes about its content are being resolved" implies that are concrete disputes about this question. Where are those disputes if not on a specific Meta question? Should a Meta post disputing this question exist prior to its locking? Jun 22, 2012 at 14:56
-
-
@kiamlaluno - but there are zero comments on the question ... I just don't get how a question can get so battled without any comments. Were comments deleted? Jun 23, 2012 at 5:47
-
@ripper234 I personally avoid leaving such comments, which normally just generate debates. There could be no comments, and users vote to close the question, or re-open it. Disputes don't necessarily involve comments.– apadernoJun 23, 2012 at 17:35