« first day (11 days earlier)      last day (2970 days later) » 

3:24 AM
@jmort253 Valid point. I need to do that.
 
 
3 hours later…
6:50 AM
@lkessler Did we mean to be referring this question to a third party site? genealogy.stackexchange.com/questions/274/…
 
 
3 hours later…
9:37 AM
@jmort253 and @GeneJ - sorry, I wasn't ignoring you. I had been spending way too much time on SE and am now cutting back on 'living' here. It's very addicting - and I find it a difficult learning curve. Yes, I was aiming at a process question. I made so many mistakes beginning in genealogy (as I am here also) that it was something I would have liked an answer to (and got a couple more good ideas from comments, answers on this site).
On a related topic, I was reading to see if I could accept two answers (answer, no) and read about a community wiki. Do you think it would be helpful to h
 
 
6 hours later…
3:50 PM
@Jeni That's an interesting idea. I would want to see it drafted on meta before we decide if its good enough for the main site.
 
 
1 hour later…
4:57 PM
@GeneJ - In response, see my meta post: meta.genealogy.stackexchange.com/questions/1132/…
@Jeni - "Addicting" is the word. There is at least one software program and one standards organization that have lost 2 months of progress because of the Genealogy & Family History Q&A.
 
@lkessler Thank you. I understand what you are saying, but we could answer every question that way.
 
@jmort253 and @GeneJ - enjoyed reading your chat.
 
Which would make for a pretty boring genealogy.se
 
@GeneJ - to me, it may mean that the question isn't very good, if it results in answers like that ... but I don't know.
... and it's not boring to the asker if it answers their question. And its not boring to anyone else finding the question if it answers it for them as well.
 
Perhaps that is what we differ about then, because I thought that was a great question for genealogy.se
 
5:04 PM
Then how would you answer it without a link. The answer is to post a question at that SIG.
 
Add that I don't have a problem with essential "link only" entries being made in comments (vs answers).
Now, if the respondent has taken the time to search that secondary site to include information IN the answer and then link to the secondary site as a reference, that is quite a different thing.
 
Well, reading it again, basically the answer is saying to ask the question elsewhere. Hmmm. I can see the logic in not wanting to do that in answers, and keep that in comments.
... so I see your point now.
I'm going to add this little chat as an answer on my Meta question.
 
151
Q: Are answers that just contain links elsewhere really "good answers"?

romandasI have often wondered at the practice on SO, SF, and the other sites where someone will ask a question and an answer will come in that says Look here: http://link elsewhere. Rarely will the link have exactly the answer necessary--often it's an entire article--yet these answers get voted up. Why ...

I hope you will be careful, though, as I believe TAH posted at our encouragement. Would hate to see that become more of a target. Does that make sense?
 
I'll add another comment on his answer to clear that up.
p.s. The number 1 answer to your linked question is: "I think that links are fantastic, but they should never be the only piece of information in your answer."
 
6:07 PM
@Jeni Hi! No worries! I understand the pain of spending too much time on SE. :)
 

« first day (11 days earlier)      last day (2970 days later) »