600 answers? Time to lock it. I know this isn't really what the locked answers were designed for, but I'm sick and tired of seeing it float to the top of the page, and it serves no useful purpose any more.

Update: Now up to 609 answers. Time to lock it properly, rather than just protected?

  • Protecting it will only prevent those with < 10 rep from answering. Do you mean lock it? (It's CW state is preventing me from easily seeing if a lot of the answers came from users with < 10 rep.) Commented Jul 21, 2010 at 23:11
  • 1
    Lock? Protect? Don't care just as long as it stops floating to the top. I don't think that > 10k users will be answering it (there aren't that many of them on SF) Commented Jul 21, 2010 at 23:16
  • 3
    Not 10k rep, just 10 rep
    – waiwai933
    Commented Jul 21, 2010 at 23:19
  • 1
    I clicked the protect button.
    – waffles
    Commented Jul 21, 2010 at 23:27
  • 3
    Hum, sounds like we need a new status that effectively locks questions to users under 10K. Call it "damn", for no other reason than to improve this question's title.
    – Shog9
    Commented Jul 21, 2010 at 23:34
  • 1
    +1 god i hate that question ... but am also surprised that there were no holy wars set off by it (that i saw anyway)
    – Zypher
    Commented Jul 21, 2010 at 23:37
  • 2
    Every time you suggest a server name, God kills a unicorn.
    – user50049
    Commented Jul 21, 2010 at 23:56
  • 3
    I love the idea of a restrict-to-10k status... we can call it THE ESTABLISHMENT in honour of Evan Carroll.
    – Ether
    Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 0:02
  • @Zypher: the wars were fought back on SO, where when that question started out...
    – Shog9
    Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 0:04

2 Answers 2


Shouldn't this question simply be closed?

Its not as if awesome server name 501 is going to pop up and change the face of the internet. I would vote to close as no longer relevant or pointless, but my votes are binding, so I will not vote.

  • If you close it as pointless, it'd be a very good candidate for deletion (not that that would be a bad thing, just FYI)
    – juan
    Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 0:28
  • 1
    Well I guess this is up to the server fault community. But my opinion is that this question is somewhat "cult" so you do not really want it deleted.
    – waffles
    Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 0:30
  • With that many votes, I don't see it being deleted.
    – Shog9
    Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 0:37
  • I meant to say that it should be closed perhaps as too localized, if a question is pointless then it should be deleted almost by definition /cc @shog
    – juan
    Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 0:54
  • @Juan: I don't disagree that it should be, I just doubt that it will be. That question has a history...
    – Shog9
    Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 1:23

Make it protected. Isn't that kinda what that feature is for?

  • 2
    "Protected" was for when new users were posting "Thanks" messages. I don't think blocking 10-rep users will cut it, plus the description printed on the question doesn't really apply. Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 2:39

You must log in to answer this question.

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