2:06 PM
@imsodin here I think it is entirely down to the leader. Current guides leader is fine, but no real adventure experience so focuses on cooking, sewing etc - old school traditional hobbies for girls. My daughters object to that as they have been brought up knowing they can do everything a boy can do.
2:39 PM
@RoryAlsop I assume by guides you mean the "female equivalent" of (boy) scouts? I can totally see why that's frustrating! Nothing wrong with cooking, sewing and co (did both in scouts, which is also good for boys brought in traditional context :D ), but not doing any of the knots, orienteering ( and mud-slinging :P ) kind of things is wrong.
2:59 PM
Ok, I don't see anything at the bottom, but to the right there is the activity graph where I can click on the chat room title to get here. In my opinion it should just get me to that message in "normal" chat or at least have a huge unmistakable "get me to chat" button, but at least it is there.
Thanks for the help!
Thanks for the help!
3:32 PM
@imsodin how weird. That's not what I get at all. The transcript link is the expected behaviour, and you click on it to see where the message to you was. And you can join the room to be live. Doing it this way is essential if, for example, the message to you was some time ago - otherwise you just wouldn't see it on joining the room
2 hours later…
5:08 PM
@imsodin I voted to close those questions because of that meta post. I wasn't purposely searching for old questions. They were subjects of that meta post, which was linked to the main site, so I thought it was consistent with what was accepted over there, in case others went there. I totally respect your reasoning, especially because I consider you someone who generally tries to see both sides.
I looked at those again today, and I shouldn't have written the close reason out in so much detail. They have a bad tone of voice and I'm genuinely sorry. I should either have quietly voted to close, or only said a small portion of what I did. I'm going to delete the comments. I'm sad that you used the word "noise". It's saved for pretty useless chatter around here, and even though I admit I was wrong, I don't like to think you felt serious enough to call me noisy.
@CharlieBrumbaugh Would you kindly read the notes I wrote to imsodin? I'm feeling sorry and sad, which is pride, and I have to take some time to get my act together.
@imsodin, I know you have as much right to say what you feel as the rest of use do, but when I remove my comments, yours will be left hanging. If you feel that's necessary, I totally get it. I just don't want people coming along later and wondering what made you say those things. I was hoping you might delete them. I don't really have a right to ask that, but I'm asking it anyway. Thanks for your kindness.
Please don't be sorry, I should have thought before I write - I generally do not put so much thought into every word I write in a comment online. What I wanted to express was, that I feel even though you are right it does not serve any point to close inactive questions. It brings questions activity which will not generate any new content to inactive questions - from the technical point of view of a physics student, that resembles noise.
Generally please don't be sorry for expressing your totally reasonable opinion just because someone else doesn't agree - I might be totally wrong, and I hav…
Generally please don't be sorry for expressing your totally reasonable opinion just because someone else doesn't agree - I might be totally wrong, and I hav…
@imsodin Thanks! I forgot adding a close reason brought unnecessary attention to old questions. That was an oversight on my part. Obviously they ended up in a review queue, which I didn't mean to happen. I've seen some older questions end up there recently too. There was one that was proposed for closing because it no longer fit into the rules of the site from a long time ago.
@CharlieBrumbaugh You're 100% right. Googleable should not be the only criteria. All of my questions are googleable.
I try hard not to make them lazy though, according to the meta post, outdoors.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1039/…... I actually wrote a very lazy one recently, about the sled dog race. I just threw it out there to see if there was any interest. It was put on hold very quickly as what would have been called "lazy" if we had such a rule! I put a lot more work into the question and it was kindly re-opened.
It wasn't answered so I didn't want to do a cut/paste answer, so I spent a long time on the answer. It drew very little attention, but it definitely looks less lazy for future viewers, and I know not to just ask anything that comes to mind without any work at all. That's what I thought was the problem with the mountain definition questions, but I should have let them be.
In case you or anyone else wants to know which question I'm referring to, it's outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/17124/…...
5:45 PM
@imsodin I just wanted to say I've always had a problem with the word "noise." Maybe it doesn't really have a negative connotation. I think if someone doesn't understand how the computer system works, it might sound more rude. This guidance in the Help Center, outdoors.stackexchange.com/help/behavior... says not to use taglines, signatures, etc., that they'll be removed to reduce "noise" in the question.
I lead new users to that page a lot, and am often concerned that they're being called noisy when really they're just trying to be polite. I guess it's a computer thing, and since SE is more computer based than anything else, computer people would understand that.
6:03 PM
While @imsodin's point about bringing old questions back to the front page is valid, in the overall scheme of things it is a benefit to close even old questions if they don't fit, so I'd encourage you to keep the close vote. The reason is that visitors who get here by searching may find those old posts - we'd rather they don't think that those posts are indicative of the ones we accept so closing helps longer term.
@CharlieBrumbaugh, I've been getting two meta questions mixed up, the one written by Erik, outdoors.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1039/…, and the one written by you, which is about the geographical identification questions. outdoors.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1031/…... That's the one that prompted my action.
@RoryAlsop Thanks but I just retracted them. Perhaps you'd like to go back and do it, but quietly. I really didn't want to retract them, just wanted to stop causing trouble.
Do comments bring questions forward, or was the problem just that I put it into a review queue for new people to judge it? For some reason I didn't think comments brought anything forward...
The site has gone through a lot of changes over the years, and, as I said earlier in this lengthy diatribe, I have been starting to see old questions getting closed because they didn't follow new standards. That's what I thought I was doing. I'd have to find one, but the close voter even used that as the close reason. It was worded well.
Actually, with my access to review tools, I can probably find it. There's really cool stuff in there!
I also forgot that a close vote comment can be edited once the vote goes through. I could have voted to close with the mods able to see why, but then edited/deleted the actual comment that goes on the page. Or I could have VTC with no comment, but that wouldn't have made sense to people when it came into the queue.
« first day (2090 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2394 days later) »
