I've fallen victim to the "net-negative-votes, no-answers, not-locked question gets deleted after 30 days" rule. :-(

Hey, @MonicaCellio !

torahmusings.com/2014/01/a-gentle-giant and judaism.stackexchange.com/search?q=rivevos

@DoubleAA If you have the wrong recipe, they original asker can fix it also. It's much better than pushing people away.

@msh210 oh! For a minute I thought you meant here, and I was wondering how that'd happened. I see. (Well I don't, because I'm not there, but you know what I mean.)

@NeilFein hey! Welcome back to Bam! Sorry I missed you; catch you later I hope.

@mods - I saw today a suggested edit in the review queue, but I hesitated to approve it outright because I had several questions about it which I am presenting here so I will knowwhat to do in the future. The edit in question is here: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/34224/…. Three questions:

Is it OK to use tinyurl links - is there a problem that they may become broken in the future?

Since this is an English language site, is it useful to link to a Hebrew website?

But my biggest question is that as far as I (and my privileges) can see, this edit was approved only by the OP who is relatively new (as am I :-), and the person proposing the change is also new - the blind leading the blind, so to speak. Am I missing something here? The same question applies to this post: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/34461/….

I await your words of wisdom :-)

@MoshePeston Real URLs are preferable to redirectors like tinyurl. It's polite to let people see where they're going before clicking; we're not character-limited here like on Twitter. I don't know if there's an outright ban on redirectors, but they're not preferred.

I believe the author of a post can unilaterally approve edits. It makes sense, since he could make the same edit himself.

A procedural note: if you see an edit in the review queue that's good but could be better, instead of approving the edit you can edit it further by clicking the "improve" link and adding your changes. (You can mark the original edit as helpful, if it was.)

I further edited the post to expand the URL.

@MonicaCellio Unilateral approval makes sense, kinda. I have a bigger problem with the second post where a low rep. edited a newbies question, and was accepted by the OP because being a newbie he/she assumed it was good advice.

Incidently, I already saw your edit, and it was exactly what I would have done.

If not for my questions.

Also, what about my second question: Since this is an English language site, is it useful to link to a Hebrew website?

@MoshePeston oh right, sorry. We link to sources on hebrewbooks a lot, so I think links to other Hebrew sites are ok. That said, a link to an English version will be more widely useful.

@MoshePeston there is a learning curve, yes. Fortunately, any edit bumps a question to the front page again, so people other than the OP will see it too and if there's a problem be able to step in or comment or something. Plus, I think the language the OP gets is something like "an edit has been proposed" and the OP can look at the diff.

@MonicaCellio What do you think of the edit - the proposer erased part of her (I think) question?

@MoshePeston you're asking about your second link (the Q edit)? Looking now (hadn't looked at it before).

@MoshePeston she spun that off into a separate question; can't tell if it was before or after the edit. But I agree with the edit; the part that was removed was another question that the OP treated as a prelude to the main question, but it doesn't seem necessary to answer that first (it's not a precondition). We want one question (or set of strongly-related questions) per question; it's fine to ask more than one.

@MonicaCellio OK, thanks.

@MoshePeston glad to help (or at least try to :-) ), and thanks for coming here with your questions!

Here's a slick example of SE content syndicated by a third party. I wonder if we could achieve this on any Jewish web-magazines. Hmmm TorahMusings?

@IsaacMoses interesting. Is that a push from someone at SE or a pull from someone outside?

@MonicaCellio Good question. Here's where I found it:

plus.google.com/+StackExchange/posts/V3eFUYtbDCB

@MonicaCellio Looks like the former, or some sort of collaboration. See:

@IsaacMoses thanks for digging that up. I wonder if there's anybody we could work with similarly. (I wonder if we have people to coordinate the content from our side, which I assume SamtheBrand does with the Ars Technica articles.)

@MonicaCellio I suspect we could strike a deal with R' Student to get a syndicated feature on TorahMusings.com. He's got a whole bunch of different kinds of content from different sources now. It'd take some serious curation/editing effort on our part to make sure to publish pieces of unerringly high quality.

@IsaacMoses yes, we'd need to make the effort there. And likely front-load it; we should have, say, half a dozen such articles ready to show him as examples before having a serious conversation with him. Am I correct in remembering that you have some connection with him? (You're the one who invited him to the launch party, aren't you? Or am I misremembering?)

@MonicaCellio Good idea about front-loading before even proposing. Yes, I've corresponded with him a few times about Mi Yodeya, and he's graciously helped us out a few times, including being the main launchpad for m.y 1.0's launch to public beta, the launch party for 2.0, and posting my Ya'akov/Lavan video

@IsaacMoses oh, I didn't know about the 1.0-to-beta launch. Cool, so he's had some (loose, perhaps) connection for a while, and perhaps can see how we've grown.

@MonicaCellio Not sure if this link still works (blocked here): hirhurim.blogspot.com/2010/03/announcements-147-miyodeya.html

@MonicaCellio By "beta," I meant still 1.0, but opening it to public participation.

@IsaacMoses works, thanks! (No heat at work today, so been working from home -- thus no IT barriers, but also no corporate network.)

@IsaacMoses I see now (from the date), yes. Initially I thought you meant the 2.0 (beta) launch in May 2011.