Here's how your story "reads" to me. You wanted to comment. You couldn't. You experienced frustration. You might have even believed you were in a Catch-22 -- that your lack of rep was keeping you from doing the only possible thing that would gain you rep, commenting in order to gain the clarifications you needed to answer a question. (Error 1.)
Then you ...
Ok...my bad. It wasn't immediately obvious or clear that this was your original work. If that happens again please provide a link when flagging.
Can I recommend that you add a pre-amble at the start of your answer along the lines of:
I wrote about this on my blog here: http://lu4242.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/understandingjsf-2-and-wicket.html
That will ...
I might be wrong, but in that context I suspect it is referring to general abusive behaviour, rather than hack=tricking software. As in: mainly the "gaming". Keep in mind that the use of the word "hack" here was not by the SO team, and should not be interpreted as a security issue. The current "locked" messages are more along the lines of one of the ...
I'd rather not give this information to people who are eagerly awaiting the lock's expiration so they can get right back to their comment argument or edit war or whatever. The goal of the lock is to delay things long enough that they cool down (or forget about it and move on); giving them a timer seems counter to that.
But I agree that it's not clear ...
In these cases, it's better to:
Rollback the edit (click "Edit", then "Rollback" to the appropriate revision)
Flag the answer and ask a moderator to step in
Stack Overflow is collaboratively edited; it doesn't make sense to kill the very feature that sets us apart from the forums.
That blog is a Internet copy machine, mostly BalusC (Bauke Scholtz) posts:
http://kumarnvm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/jsf-2.html copies from What are the main disadvantages of Java Server Faces 2.0?, or was excerpted from this blog post by BalusC.
In http://kumarnvm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/using-mvc-design-pattern-with.html the blog owner claims to be BalusC ...
For one-offs, just leave a comment. You can do that. You can even move the other comments to chat or just delete them if need-be.
Heck, edit a big-ass "THIS QUESTION IS LOCKED BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE AND WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN" banner at the top of the post if you want. It's a unique occurrence, for which no one was prepared; ...
All the times I've locked a post - it's been to avoid an ongoing edit/rollback war, to let the people calm down and take a break. An expiring-within-x-hours-lock with a message:
Post has been locked to cool down an edit war
would be useful.
(Note: The actual message could be a lot better)
I think locking it is a good idea, though not for the voting aspect, but for the media attention the question gets (and hence the noise generated by it being unlocked).
Just today, we've already already had comments about it being unlocked that we've deleted, and there's no sense in having a lightning rod around. Lock it, wait for everything to blow over, ...
That's a good idea, but actually another thing confuses me as much as the fact I can actually flag it.
"This comment" sounds a bit misleading because it is not really only this comment, but all the comments can't be voted on (and it is not possible to lock only one comment, as I know). So I propose this wording:
This post is locked; voting on comments ...
You asked a question which was asked a thousand times before, it gets asked probably a few times a the week. You asked on the main site first, which isn't taken very good either by community members.
Also, your post lacks decent formatting and it reads more like a rant. You didn't do any research on the subject, since you would have easily found the answer.
No. We should not do this.
Very often answers are posted after the fact which are better than the best answer. Very often, an answer will appear to work, but will have some flaws.
You need to be able to change which answer is the accepted answer. I see no benefit in preventing the user from changing the accepted answer. It will just make people more ...
I won't status-completed this because we've only done a small portion of your request so far, which is to make it clearer in the lock dialog what the lock is actually going to do:
Bit of a wall-o-text at the top, but hopefully it's helpful - and it links out to the help center in case more information is needed.
As for the other bits, we've kicked off some ...
I've unlocked it for you.
Instead of deleting it, consider updating the accepted answer to consolidate the other answers and bring it up to date, and I will place a canonical lock on it.
As to the question in your title, not a chance. It's got three hundred thousand views. If you really want it gone, you're going to have to muster the 20 delete votes ...
For some cases, a moderator might unlock and relock a post, however, I don't think that should be the case for this post and this type of edit.
From the FAQ you reference (emphasis mine):
Historically locking a post ends the debate over whether a question should be kept on the site or deleted, and is often the final state of a question that has been ...
Trivia: many years ago now, there were three types of votes that could be cast on comments...
The first is the upvote arrow. The second is the delete link (only visible to comment authors and mods). The third was the flag option, until we redesigned the flagging system and stopped storing those as votes.
So at one time, this ...
No, at least not because the question is being voted on.
Locking the question is only needed to prevent noise being posted (taunting comments, nonsense answers, etc.). We should care less if Frosty receives additional votes on that question or not. It's not as if internet points pay for his legal defense.
If the question attracts more noise again, then ...
Voting arrows do not mean you can vote on the post. If they did, that would mean we'd have to remove them:
when you're not logged in
when you don't have enough rep to vote
when you don't have enough rep to downvote (the down arrow would be removed)
when you are post's author
when you have used all your votes for the day
Voting arrows are shown in all these ...
I for one think that allowing comments would certainly result in many devolving into a comment war, even if that wasn't the reason the question was locked. There's no easy way to restrict comments to only "Please refer to this meta discussion", etc.
A better solution might be to create an automatic Meta post when the post is locked and have it auto-linked ...
The "locked by" text is correctly placed, as it is referring to the answer; the reason for doing that is that locking a question doesn't stop its answers from being editable or voted, while in this case it's the answer that needs to be locked (to avoid it is voted, or edited).
If the answer were not locked, it would appear as the following one (the one ...
No, well not for logged-in users that would otherwise have the privilege to vote. The request is (as Shadow Wizard noted in comments) logged and queryable to some extent, but there's no 'feedback' if you're registered.
If you're unregistered or not logged in, it is recorded, you can try voting on this while incognito, the feedback is sent.
I'm normally pretty strongly in the anti-deletionist camp, but I have to admit that I don't see the point in keeping that question around. Unlike a lot of other locked posts that at least have some information that someone might find useful, that one is just a hodgepodge of random unrelated snippets. I don't see how having all that information collected in ...
Yeah, strictly-speaking it's not necessary anymore.
It does send a rather clear message though, eh? I mean, you can't even edit the post. Mod-deletion at least gives you the option of improving, flagging, and seeing it undeleted, but community flag-deletion salts the earth.
Reporting it here on Meta is fine, since that seems to be your only option. We don't lock a lot of posts permanently, and when we do we normally clean up any link-only answers beforehand. This should be a rare thing. Thanks for pointing it out.
Moderators can edit locked posts, so you if you can bring the post to our attention - clearly explaining what the problem is then we'll be able to sort it.
Normally I'd say raise a flag, but you're not able to to flag a post because it has an historical lock. In this case either see if a moderator is online in chat (you'd need to be lucky) or raise a ...
As Oded noted in comments, it's rather common for moderators to clean up the comments that led to locking a post prior to applying the lock. This is usually because they noticed a bunch of comment flags in the moderation dashboard (where they probably deleted the worst of them) and then visited the post to see what else was needed.
It's sometimes easy to ...
Experimental research suggests the following posts are included (as long as they're not deleted, like e.g. spam posts):
Locked questions which
are not closed
have not been merged
All locked answers
Historical locks are sometimes treated differently than other lock types, but not here.
It's not possible to filter for non-merged questions, but otherwise ...
Stack Overflow is not a forum.
However, if you are talking about not allowing any more answers on a particular post, then it can be done by the moderators of Stack Overflow or privileged users who can vote to close your question. Once the post reaches 5 votes, it is automatically closed.
It is called "closing" and the question is deemed as "closed", which ...