Moderator Kev closed this a year after it was posted as being somehow not appropriate. Please let me know if this is merited and what guideline I disobeyed? I am posting this to meta stackoverflow because @Kev's bio says that issues regarding his moderation must be raised here.

Creating uniform submit, save, cancel buttons without photoshop

  • 2
    It's probably too design-oriented or something. Aug 4, 2012 at 19:06
  • It's more of a graphic design problem unless you're asking "how can I make specific feature work in CSS + browser?". Plus as I just commented I don't think it's the problem you think it is. You can use CSS and make the majority of users, even mobile users, happy, or you can use some hideous hack that makes the <1% of IE6 users happy
    – Ben Brocka
    Aug 4, 2012 at 19:11
  • 1
    It isn't though--WITHOUT photoshop is the whole point--it says it in the title! I wanted to do it with HTML alone. Cross-browser html with consistent post-data is a programming problem.
    – ebeland
    Aug 4, 2012 at 19:30
  • 4
    @ebeland HTML is only mentioned in your tags, how about editing the question to make it crystal clear that you are looking for an HTML / CSS solution? If you do, you should also tell us what you've already tried (some code, or evidence of prior research would suffice).
    – yannis
    Aug 4, 2012 at 19:58
  • Good suggestion @Yannis. Although, I can't say I'm enjoying being at negative 2 on this for trying to understand "why?" even though the mod's bio said to ask here, and I'm trying to be a good citizen and find out what I did wrong.
    – ebeland
    Aug 4, 2012 at 21:28
  • 3
    Don't worry about being at -2, voting is different on Meta.
    – yannis
    Aug 4, 2012 at 21:35

5 Answers 5


Your question probably got flagged, bad URL would be one guess. It isn't visible to anybody but the moderators. Moderators have to do something about that, they are expected to apply the black-and-white and were told to only reject flags in the rarest of circumstances. The outcome is highly visible to the flagger. Whom tend to get their underwear in a bundle when they get a rejection, nobody is looking forward to that meta post.

This tends to expose questions to the kind of scrutiny that few of them can survive, you can almost always find something wrong them. Especially the "not constructive" reason is popular. Or apply "things changed around here". I struggle in this case, but would guess at "best practice", the kind of question that was outlawed a while ago. Before you asked this btw. A closure is the typical result. Even though that makes no sense whatsoever after a year of asking the question, the odds that you'll get any more responses are zilch anyway.

So no real harm done either, you got a decent answer that you were happy with and there will be no other either way. The sting of having your question rejected as a legitimate one notwithstanding. Hopefully the real issue will be addressed some day. Or not, because everybody is just happy with the status quo. You can tell from the rest of the answers that that's the current vogue. When a site gets hit with 6000 questions every day and there's only one Skeet then you need Government. Which applies rulez consistently and retro-actively so nobody can complain.

  • Thank you. I have a better understanding of why, why now, and the roles involved, and you were pretty nice about it to boot! :-)
    – ebeland
    Aug 4, 2012 at 21:32
  • 6
    "moderators are expected to apply the black-and-white and were told to only reject flags in the rarest of circumstances." in practice we do what we feel is right. Much love to to Jeff, but in practice we reject as we feel fit, not as how SE management see fit. Flag declines aren't as rare as that post makes it out to be.
    – Kev
    Aug 4, 2012 at 21:32
  • 2
    Also, even if we mark a flag as helpful, we still have the option of not acting on the flag. Aug 4, 2012 at 21:55
  • 7
    This answer is factually incorrect in a number of respects: 1) We have middle ground. We can edit the question, mark the flags as helpful but do nothing. The flags are not the 'be all and end all', the flagged post is. The flags are just indicators that someone thinks something needs to happen to that post. 2) Re: "Thanks, Noted" -- that's what "No further action -> Mark flag as useful/declined" is for. 3) Just because a post is flagged doesn't mean we'll do anything about it, so 'the scrutiny that few survive' puts it incorrectly. 4) The question isn't just for the poster. (1/2) Aug 4, 2012 at 22:09
  • 2
    (2/2) The question is also for the community. If a link breaks and that link was the backbone of the question, the next googler will stumble upon a useless question. That makes Stack Overflow look bad. 5) What's the "real issue" that needs addressing? Your post doesn't make that clear. Aug 4, 2012 at 22:11
  • 1
    That question is not so-so. If Raymond Chen says it's off topic, it's off topic.
    – casperOne
    Aug 4, 2012 at 23:17
  • @casperOne Damn, forgot about that. That was supposed to be on my Mega-Comment-That-Should-Be-A-Post-But-This-Isn't-a-Forum comment. Aug 5, 2012 at 2:47

Please note that the guidelines have evolved over time. What would have been considered on-topic in the past (or, at least, not off-topic) may not be seen the same way now.

Note also that Moderators generally don't trawl through old posts looking for problems. Other people using the site alert Moderators using flags.

All that said, I'd probably close it too. It looks more like you're trying to engage the community in discussion rather than looking for an answer for a specific problem that you have.

  • FWIW someone asked us UX mods if we wanted it; not sure if it got flagged for migration or what. Too old, too graphic design oriented and too not constructive for a migration to UX though.
    – Ben Brocka
    Aug 4, 2012 at 19:13

From the question:

Looks ok, but there are complaints about what IE submits in the postdata in the comments, and about how IE renders the buttons in IE 6. What are other people doing in this regard?

This is the red flag in your question. As Tart mentions, you're trying to start a discussion on Stack Overflow and you're trying to poll the community for thoughts. Both of these aspects make your question not constructive, although the moderator closed it as off-topic.

My suggestion, if you want to make a stronger case for reopening your question, is to edit it and improve it. Since you have a single answer, your question didn't turn out to be quite that bad. So, eliminate the polls -- "What are OTHER PEOPLE doing" -- and make the question fit the answer.

I actually tried to edit it for you. I did get rid of some of the not constructive parts, but that's about all I can do. Maybe throwing some code in there might make it more of a programming question. (It has potential to be a programming question).

With that said, if it has any chance for migration to another site, I'd still suggest you clean it up as much as you can. Ben Brocka listed some problems here, some of which you can control :)

Too old, too graphic design oriented and too not constructive for a migration to UX though.

Fix these things, and your question has a better chance of finding a home, whether that be on Stack Overflow, the Graphics Design site, or somewhere else. Just remember, none of those sites will accept a migration that doesn't fit the SE guidelines. Good luck!

  • I also though of GD.SE, but then noticed that the question was asked on Feb 2011, so migration to a beta site is probably out of the question, if there is a GD question somewhere in the question in question it should be re-asked.
    – yannis
    Aug 4, 2012 at 20:10
  • @YannisRizos - It's ultimately up to those mods I guess. I wouldn't take it, but it does have a better chance of survival, even just here on SO, if it's edited and improved.
    – jmort253
    Aug 4, 2012 at 20:18

George and James have covered pretty much most of the reasons why this question isn't great. Just so you can hear it directly "from the horses mouth", I found the question just a bit vague and fluffy:

  • You link to a fairly substantial article which we have to read through to understand your question.
  • You don't quote any specific parts of said article that you have problems with.
  • You don't provide any examples of things you've tried.
  • It's a question that would elicit discussion and vague answers, such as the one you accepted. I'm not seeing any there that is a definitive way of solving this problem.
  • I guess, to me, since I got value out of the answer (and switched to jquery), it was useful. I get the sense, from the postings here and the new items in the FAQ, that stackoverflow has evolved into something of a carefully curated museum of targeted questions and answers for posterity, as opposed to a way to get information for myself, or have a discussion with other developers. In the future, I will find another avenue for my questions. Thanks for giving me the straight dope.
    – ebeland
    Aug 5, 2012 at 14:18
  • SO was never a discussion forum with other developers, but a Q&A first and foremost. And the temper to read linked articles in order to understand the gist of the question (when the question should be standalone) has severely waned @ebe
    – random
    Aug 5, 2012 at 20:30

There are a few problems with the post:

  1. What have you tried? Anything? Without seeing your code, it just looks like a 'do this for me' question, which is frowned upon.

  2. The source material for the post is an internet archive link. This question can't stand on its own -- if the internet archive is down, the question becomes nearly useless.

  3. "Proper"? What means proper? It's a bit subjective. Add some criteria. What browsers do you want to support? What browsers do you not want to support?

  4. It bears mentioning again, What have you tried?

I would have closed it as 'too localized' or 'not a real question' based on the above points I listed.

  • The original link was broken, so Kev replaced it with the Internet archive link. I'm not sure I understand your 2nd point George. The link just leads to a blog post that describes a technique for styling the buttons globally. For the other points, you're spot on. (I also edited the question a bit to explain what the link was about.)
    – jmort253
    Aug 4, 2012 at 20:14
  • 1
    @jmort253 - I think what George is getting at as well is that we have to digest that article just to get a handle on what's actually being asked.
    – Kev
    Aug 4, 2012 at 21:47
  • @Kev - If that's the case, then it makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.
    – jmort253
    Aug 4, 2012 at 21:49
  • 1
    @jmort253 Kev hit it right on the nose. I'll make it clearer in the future. Aug 4, 2012 at 21:54

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