Timeline for How should we revise the standard off-topic reasons, if we can have up to five?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.codereview.stackexchange.com/ with https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.codereview.stackexchange.com/ with https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| May 4, 2016 at 21:53 | comment | added | 200_success Mod | Thanks for this proposal, which shows it is possible to condense the common rejection reasons into three standard categories. I have difficulty discerning the difference between the first two reasons, in the case of incomplete features, for example. The wordiness and visual similarity is also a concern. We can't apply these reasons verbatim in this current form, but this is a good starting point. | |
| Jun 12, 2015 at 16:36 | comment | added | Robert Cartaino | @rolfl Fixing the close reasons does not replace any material written before a user asks a question. You can still have your FAQs and meta posts and growing Help Center article. You are asking for more close reasons, but this approach is simply a clearer way to let authors (and everyone looking on) why a question was closed at the source. Not everybody takes on all these reading assignments before they ask a question. I found this way more effective than the tradition approach of piling on more close reasons and cramming in more FAQs that the vast majority of users will never read. | |
| Jun 11, 2015 at 15:07 | comment | added | rolfl Mod | Additionally, I am concerned that this information is being presented at the wrong time - closing the barn door after the horse escaped, as such. This information should be presented to users before they ask questions, not after they fail. Improving communication to (new?) users before they ask their first question would be more useful, I think. There is no nice way to tell a person their question is to be trashed after they have asked it.... before they ask it is the time... | |
| Jun 11, 2015 at 15:04 | comment | added | rolfl Mod | Change is hard, it seems... but, one of the real benefits of the current system is the ability to link to "remedial" links people can follow to get more detail on the close reason motivations, and, importantly, instructions on how to correct their question. Having the same, or similar content for each close reason would make it hard. | |
| Jun 11, 2015 at 1:46 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Jun 11, 2015 at 0:10 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Jun 10, 2015 at 21:23 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 130 characters in body
|
| S Jun 10, 2015 at 20:25 | history | answered | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Jun 10, 2015 at 20:25 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Robert Cartaino |