« first day (136 days earlier)      last day (2475 days later) » 

6:03 AM
@damryfbfnetsi: Rather than creating a cleanup question, per tag requests might work better at our scale
We don't have years of posts to deal with
 
 
14 hours later…
7:52 PM
@unor give us another answer to upvote and we'll get a nice green slot at Area51 ;)
 
8:42 PM
@Izzy I saw your comment and upvoted it
@Izzy What do you think about my answers to that question?
 
9:12 PM
@damryfbfnetsi to which question? And yes, you've found my complete answer to why HW questions should stay OT. A link to that Meta-Q could be included in the closure reason.
 
@Izzy Edit it, then.
 
Done :)
I've also removed your "instead", as IMHO it makes no sense to have the OP detailing his current hardware when the question is about recommending new hardware. I might be wrong with that, though.
 
@Izzy Oh, sorry, I didn't notice your chat message. I added it back in before I saw that. Should I roll it back?
@Izzy See my comment on the answer for details on why I added that.
@Izzy Basically, it's asking the post author to convert their question from "What is the best HW to run this specific SW?" to "What is the best alternative to SW that runs on this specific HW?"
@Undo What do you think about the hardware custom close reason?
@Izzy I've linked directly to the answer (and removed your user code from the URL).
 
@damryfbfnetsi The question will more likely be "What is the best <HW>?", and not be SW related at all.
 
@Izzy We'll close such questions as "blatantly off-topic" as they have nothing whatsoever to do with software recommendations
 
9:25 PM
Whatever. But currently we were talking about HW questions specifically :)
 
@Izzy According to my comment, that close reason is specifically for questions of the form detailed above. However, you're right, as due to its wording, it could be prone to misuse on any hardware-rec question, including those that are blatantly off-topic
 
@damryfbfnetsi While generally removing "user code" is not nice, in this case you're absolutely right: it has nothing to do in closure reasons. Sorry for me missing it!
 
@Izzy You do know that your user code is always embedded in share links whenever you are logged in, right?
 
Not only that. I've written a UserScript converting all links accordingly – so when I'm copy/pasting them anywhere, I get the credits :)
Unfortunately, UserScripts.ORG went down, so I cannot give you a link to the script...
 
9:58 PM
sigh. I answered a question only to then be told he wanted an open source solution. And I read the question 3 times >.<
 
@Seth This is why we should "demand" in the comments that the post author put ALL their criteria in the question itself.
If the purpose of Stack Exchange is to provide answers to questions for the worldwide audience of the Internet, is this site doing that viably?
 
@damryfbfnetsi we do
 
@Gilles edited
"Is that all your criteria, or is there still something else that you forgot to mention in your question? If so, please edit it"
@Undo What happened to the Z in your user icon?
 
This dog ate it.
 
LOL
 
10:13 PM
@Undo What do you think about my additions to the custom close reason question?
 
Careful what else it's going to eat, or we end up with 3 dogs as mods...
 
@Izzy Then we'll have to appoint more mods from the initial mod nomination thread
People will hope for this, as some wanted more than three mods
@Izzy Did the same happen with @JourneymanGeek's icon?
@Izzy It's just waiting to happen with @Gilles
4 mins ago, by damryfbfnetsi
@Undo What do you think about my additions to the custom close reason question?
 
@damryfbfnetsi no, I don't do dogs
 
@damryfbfnetsi looking
 
@damryfbfnetsi none of the proposals in that thread convinced me
 
10:18 PM
I remember what happened at SU when they converted all mod user icons to the Modern style (as in MSFT)
They should do the same here, except with dogs
 
I'm not convinced we should have a close reason refering to the question quality guidelines. All too often I see people leaving a generic comment saying RTFguidelines, instead of a comment tailored to the question (add this and that information). I'm afraid a custom close reason would exacerbate that.
 
@Gilles Yes, I can see where that is going. However, it is quite highly upvoted...
This is why we have custom-custom close reasons (comment and generic message)
13 mins ago, by damryfbfnetsi
If the purpose of Stack Exchange is to provide answers to questions for the worldwide audience of the Internet, is this site doing that viably?
 
The one I most want implemented is this:
8
A: Custom close reasons for software recommendations

FlykThis question appears to be off-topic because it does not contain enough information to give good recommendations, or it does not meet our minimum quality requirements. For guidelines on what your question should contain, please see What is required for a question to contain "enough information"?

 
3 mins ago, by Gilles
I'm not convinced we should have a close reason refering to the question quality guidelines. All too often I see people leaving a generic comment saying RTFguidelines, instead of a comment tailored to the question (add this and that information). I'm afraid a custom close reason would exacerbate that.
 
except people would use it as a way to avoid leaving a comment.
 
10:23 PM
@Undo and that's precisely the one I don't like
on the other hand, so many people leave a generic comment now, maybe it wouldn't be worse
I don't know
 
I think it should stay as it is highly upvoted
 
I have comment templates that reference the quality guidelines, but more often than note I tailor them before posting
 
What about this one?
7
A: Custom close reasons for software recommendations

FlykQuestions that solicit discussion or feature comparisons between multiple products rather than asking for recommendations that fit within our clearly defined requirements are off-topic for this site. Instead, describe the exact features you're looking for in your question.

I wonder why short links aren't oneboxed
 
@damryfbfnetsi you have an extra /
7
A: Custom close reasons for software recommendations

FlykQuestions that solicit discussion or feature comparisons between multiple products rather than asking for recommendations that fit within our clearly defined requirements are off-topic for this site. Instead, describe the exact features you're looking for in your question.

 
@Gilles but that shouldn't matter, as the link still works when clicked
 
10:26 PM
@damryfbfnetsi No, he's always been a four-legged one. Almost by birth, AFAIK #D
 
@damryfbfnetsi the oneboxer is a little picky
I could get behind this one:
4
A: Custom close reasons for software recommendations

Braiam Requests for hosting providers and services in general, is outside our scope, through we accept asking for applications hosted in the internet (WebApps).

 
@Gilles @Undo once reported a bug regarding Wikipedia oneboxing
 
but I'm not sure our policy on services is that finely honed
there's still a lot of confusion between server-side apps and service providers
 
This is a server-side app: office.com
 
I don't see the point of the hardware one: the main reason we forbid them is that the site name is software recommendations, so if you ask for a hardware recommendation, it's clearly off-topic
 
10:28 PM
This is a service provider: godaddy.com
 
@damryfbfnetsi Yes, but only in the sense that all service providers run server-side apps
 
@Gilles Read my comment on that answer
 
Wikipedia is a service provider: you give them a word and you get an article back
Mediawiki is a server-side app
@damryfbfnetsi “we'll have one such question” does not justify a close reason
we add a custom close reason when a case has already come up often, and we have a clear policy
 
If services are off-topic and software is on-topic...
 
@Gilles As we already pointed out (and I then followed this advice), using canned responses is fine but one should "personalize" it. Taking that "not enough information" example, I usually start with the canned response, and then add some hints on what exactly is missing.
 
10:31 PM
...what about "software-as-a-service" applications?
 
But well, we're not talking about canned responses here but about custom closure messages. No way to "personalize" those.
 
@Gilles Is that what you're talking about?
@Gilles What I meant by that is that new users would think that their questions mention "software" and they are "recommendations", so thay might think that it is therefore on-topic for "software recommendations"
This won't happen maybe in the U.S., but it could happen in developing places like India
@Gilles I assume you live in the U.S., so I think you'd understand what I mean above
 
We can close such things as blatantly off-topic, with a comment. We don't need to prepare for a highly specified case.
 
@damryfbfnetsi again, you're using a plural tense. We aren't going to anticipate what people may do. Per-site close reasons are for common issues, not for hypothetical issues.
@damryfbfnetsi you aren't very observant, are you?
 
The other reason why I added that was because there was a discussion regarding it (linked in the reason)
@Gilles That must be a rhetorical question
@Gilles As you can see with the edit on my previous message, I am observant
 
11:19 PM
-1
Q: Do moderators have access to dev.stackoverflow.com, and can anyone access it by filling a form?

damryfbfnetsiI just realized that there is a Stack Overflow "development and testing" site (http://dev.stackoverflow.com/) that says that you must receive an invitation e-mail in order to join. I have a couple questions about it: Do moderators have access to it? Rather than being paid employees of Stack Exc...

Don't ask me how I stumbled upon it...I seriously don't know...
I consider it to be a big accomplishment to have your question locked for historical significance (instead of deleted)
 

« first day (136 days earlier)      last day (2475 days later) »