« first day (2962 days earlier)      last day (1359 days later) » 

2:49 AM
I'm not sure what to do with this edit. The new wording makes it seem like following the instructions in the linked question was sufficient to solve the problem but then additional modifications were made, when in actuality the post author seems to be saying all the changes were needed.
Probably it should get an Edit review, but I'm reluctant to do that at this point since it has zero reviews so far and I am not sure I want to unilaterally approve an edit that (in other ways) so radically changes the post.
 
3:31 AM
@EliahKagan I wonder if that impression would be reduced by putting a comma before "first"
but then probably... "and then opening... altering" idk
 
Maybe the problem is that it rewords the post way more than necessary.
 
I guess the first part did not really need re-wording, although linking to the other answer is a significant improvement
 
I definitely think linking to the other answer is a major improvement.
 
I edited it
 
Looks good--thanks.
Is the comment really needed? The OP should be notified by the edits because they affect a large percentage of the post.
 
3:43 AM
thanks to you! I am just reading the comment... the second half of it looks helpful
I would quite like to edit the comment
but I am in general reluctant to do that because people cannot even edit their own comments, and also probably would find their comments being edited astonishing, and have no way to even see what was changed
 
Yeah. Although moderators can edit comments and I think it would probably be acceptable (i.e., not unacceptable) to edit that one, it seems to me that it would be much better to remove it than to edit it.
 
the text that the comment refers to has now vanished from the post, so it doesn't make much sense now
 
Speaking of which, should the last paragraph actually have been removed entirely?
 
I'm not sure about that either
 
It seems, among other things, to have the effect of clarifying how the problem manifests in the situation where the post author has actually observed their solution to work.
 
3:46 AM
I was going to ask you
 
Well, my thinking was that it was reasonable to remove it, but I wasn't sure why is the main reason I didn't click Edit originally.
 
well, I have put most of it back
 
The new edit is outside the 5 minute window and thus is a separate item in the revision history. It might be good for it to have an edit summary that explains the reason for putting some of it back.
 
thanks!
does it make sense?
 
Yes.
Did you use mod powers to edit your own edit summary (rather than modifying the edit slightly so the system would allow it)?
I'm wondering because of the "(comment edited 19 secs ago)" part. There's nothing wrong with it though.
 
3:58 AM
yes I used my "edit comment" button... isn't it the case that one cannot edit the summary without actually making a further change to the post?
 
Yes.
I'm not objecting.
It just hadn't occurred to me to do it any other way than making a further change to the post.
 
I am glad to know that you can see the "comment edited" comment
 
It seems to be automatically tacked on to the end of the edit summary.
I wonder what happens if an edit summary is mod-edited into a new summary that has the maximum allowed length.
Probably the parenthesized "comment edited" text is still appended.
 
when a post is converted to a comment and it is too long, it is truncated
 
unclear, no response from the OP.
duplicate or unclear. OP didn't respond to the first comment with target (so it worked?) or the second comment which asked them to investigate something else.
 
4:14 AM
unrelated: Catija has just given me some statistics relating to close voting/flagging that I need to post on this meta question.
90 days prior to the most recent 30 days (120-30 days ago):
Questions getting one vote/flag: 6073
Percent handled "close" - 60%
Percent handled "leave open" - 5%
Total percent handled - 64%
So... not terrible but that's ~35% going unhandled.
329 questions closed by mods, 3857 by users, so about 8% by mods
35% unhandled seems terrible to me
 
Better than handled wrong, though.
Are any data available that might help to figure out how often questions get three or more close votes for an incorrect close reason?
 
@EliahKagan very true
@EliahKagan hmm I saw something on MSE recently
 
My impression is that this is a spectacularly common occurrence on our site.
 
what I have just posted is everything she gave me
@EliahKagan yes
 
But I admit that it is only that "spectacularly" part that I can be confident about. That is, regularly seeing such questions is a pervasive and striking part of the experience of reviewing close votes. But that doesn't directly show how many questions are affected compared to the total number of questions that receive three or more close votes.
...How is the percent handled "Leave Open" so small?
This makes me think people are overly reluctant to click Leave Open and are clicking Skip (or perhaps Close) instead.
I do not think that anywhere near 95% of posts in the CV queue actually qualify for closure.
 
4:30 AM
this is what I saw on MSE - not actually particularly helpful
 
(unrelated, sorry) no longer needed, doesn't look like very useful for the question specifically. I don't understand the "When the application set not to recharge it less than 60% makes sense." part clearly, but looks like it misinterpreted the question.
Also the suggestion of "unplug the battery when you use your laptop on AC" is probably not much of a use as most likely this laptop (presumably a modern one as it supports this "health charging" thingy) came with a non-removable battery.
Incidentally, this question received a good answer from a new user recently. This feature was added to the Linux kernel very recently.
 
@Zanna But that's not on MSE.
Those statistics seem specific to Stack Overflow. That Q&A is on MSO, and the query it links is to the stackoverflow URL in SEDE.
 
@EliahKagan sorry hahaha
close vote stats for last 30 days on AU ^
each row is one reviewer
 
4:49 AM
For the same period as above:
Edited after close: 609
Percentage reopened: 5%
Percentage marked "leave closed": 23%
Total handled: 27%
So, y'all have nothing in the reopen queue, so let's assume that the total percentage handled is 100% - so that's about 30 reopened and 140 marked "leave closed". There's likely some rounding errors there, though, since I don't have any significant digits.

So, 17.6% were reopened.
more stats from Catija ^
 
@Natty bah.. I need to fix that this weekend then :(
 
OT no-repro, Rebooting the computer, solved the problem.
 
If a reboot doesn't fix the problem, you haven't rebooted enough
2
 
5:58 AM
OT Meta
 
@BhargavRao :D
 
6:16 AM
OT Manjaro
OT PHP programming
 
 
2 hours later…
 
1 hour later…
@Natty tp
 
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Potentially bad keyword in answer (1): Spotify not in launcher and shows as question mark in dock by Vincent Yang on askubuntu.com
 
10:11 AM
@Kulfy he Adapter's product name only appear after you have installed the driver, and that product name depends on which driver you are using. If he had install RTL8723 driver, the name would have been 'Rtl8723PCIe wireless adapter' . — Ashmem yesterday
Does this comment make sense?
false claims. I assume the answerer was already logged in TTY1.
 
@Natty fp
^^ Though it could be considered as shorter version of Fabby's answer
 
11:16 AM
Autoflagging disabled until restart
 
@Natty tp
@Natty Flagging is a privilege and you don't have that on AU 😈
 
 
2 hours later…
no longer needed, wrong canned comment
 
is that no-repro?
 
@jokerdino It wasn't re-reported for almost 6 years after coming back? Or did it go away again and then come back recently?
@Zanna Yes.
Unless I'm missing something. Should it not be closed as no-repro?
@Natty tp
@Natty fp though it should be expanded.
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty This is either a wrong answer presenting what is intended to be a workaround, or a request for information (based on a wrong belief). Depending on which, it's either fp or tp, respectively. I don't know which it is.
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty fp though it should be expanded.
@Natty fp but it definitely should be expanded.
@Natty tp spam
@Natty fp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty fp but it would benefit from expansion. What really most needs to be expanded there is that other answer.
 
2:53 PM
@EliahKagan seems totally no repro to me, idek why I'm asking
 
@Natty tp
 
@Natty tp The question should be split up into separate question and answer.
 
@EliahKagan I am not sure.. let me check our recent migrations.
I don't know what I was trying to do with that but the bug is alive.
 
3:44 PM
So... the current behavior is intended, based on the idea that people will click through to see the revision history?
If so, that doesn't seem to address the problem that the latest revision as of migration is attributed to the OP and appears to be the OP's own words.
Thanks for the research you've done on this, by the way. I never got around (and still, at least for the moment, am not getting around) to doing a proper search of MSE and posting.
Are answer upvotes migrated? Should I avoid upvoting a migrated answer that I think I recall having upvoted before migration?
 
4:01 PM
@EliahKagan that seems status-bydesign
 
 
2 hours later…
5:55 PM
@Zanna No. Is the issue that it's considered low quality? I don't think that's the case but perhaps it can be edited to say something about the filesystems Micro SD cards are usually formatted with being readable on both systems. Unfortunately I don't know, anymore, what is most commonly used. My guess is that it's exFAT for at least the big Micro SD cards.
Can the question be improved to no longer be opinion-based?
@jokerdino Thanks. I'm also wondering what the best practice is considered to be for voting.
 
 
@Natty tp
@Natty fp
 
6:24 PM
@EliahKagan damn, didn't know it was closed
Should have reworded it earlier
I'll edit it
 
@Natty tp
 
6:58 PM
@Natty tp
 
9:01 PM
OT Arch
 
9:11 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in answer, repeating words in answer (173): Unable to start jack (Cannot allocate memory) by asd on askubuntu.com
 
 
2 hours later…
11:33 PM
@Natty fp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty This looks like it may be giving a separate solution.
@Natty fp
 

« first day (2962 days earlier)      last day (1359 days later) »