Tiny Giant

If someone were to post a stub that said only "I don't like this idea" and invited the community to edit in all the reasons why they didn't like it, that would be a misuse of the concept. That isn't providing anything to be expanded on, and any expansion would be all over the place.

A bullet point list of random thoughts on the topic would absolutely not be a good use of this. Ideally the post would contain one core point or idea and invite the community to expand on that core idea with any considerations they may have, all the while forfeiting ownership to remove the normal ownership-edit barrier that exists.

The whole point is to mitigate that, get a proper post started even if it isn't fully considered or fleshed out, and get that discussion and clarification happening under the answer, instead of in a comment thread to be deleted.

Now such partial answer comments and the attempts to clarify and discuss those points are going to be deleted or moved to chat to fade into obscurity instead of making it to the proper answer state.

No, think someone posts a suggestion in a comment. They haven't figured out all the details of how their suggestion would work or anything like that, just the core idea. Traditionally, someone may come along later, see that comment, and be inspired to write a fully fleshed out answer inspired by that core idea. They may have never thought of that by themselves, and the original author may not have had the experience to consider all aspects of the suggestion sufficiently.

I'll see if I can't put that into an edit to the question once I've had a bit of time to consider how it should be worded and presented.

Partially formulated answers however, do have an inherent issue in that we have historically expected answers to be fully formulated before being posted and have downvoted such answers and commented along the lines of the author should have posted a comment. That isn't encouraged anymore so we need a third option. This is that third option.

As it stands, fully formulated answers that address only a specific part of the question aren't downvoted solely because they only address a specific part of the question. Those answers don't really have a problem in that way. They may be downvoted because people disagree or think the point is not useful, but it isn't generally expected that an answer on meta needs to address the entire question in order to be posted as an answer.

I'm not necessarily talking about answers that only address part of the question, but rather answers that aren't fully formulated or fleshed out.

Obviously if an edit changes an idea into an entirely different idea, it shouldn't be applied. This is to expand ideas that aren't fully considered, not to completely replace them with different ideas.

@Marco13 I thought "If you feel you can expand on, improve, or clarify a stub in any way, while keeping the core idea intact, feel free to edit it." was sufficiently clear on that matter. Is it not?

@Marco13 That is also part of the point.

@Marco13 Regarding this message, that is part of the point.

@Marco13 You've expressed that in a few different places, but always as comments which makes it hard to clarify and discuss your position. Doing it here keeps it out of view of the rest of the community. Would you consider posting an answer so that your position/concerns can be clarified and discussed?

Who knows, it may end up catching on even if the initial voting on the post is what it is.

I really didn't think this would be a controversial proposal.

awesome.

@cullub, I've included a TL;DR that borrows heavily from your proposed TL;DR. Thoughts?

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I'm on my phone at the moment with limited editing capabilities so I will get on that when I get back to my computer

I think that's a good start. I have some clarifications that I would like to make to it then I'll add it to the question.

it wasn't a big change.

@Cullub, sorry I edited the post again. You can get the source of the most recent edit via the edit history by clicking on the "source" link for the edit: meta.stackoverflow.com/revisions/…

Before, they could always exist as comments, now they can't really any longer.

@Cullub They've always been allowed. The community has discouraged them historically through voting.

gist.github.com/Tiny-Giant/cd429f1d233f1048f3fd38ece2861780

@Cullub You could make gist on github and link it here.

@Cullub It is, but I'm trying to address all the concerns that the community has and clarify everything that needs to be clarified. I don't know how I could make it shorter and still say everything that needs to be said.

@HonoraryWorldCitizen Canada has (to an extent) legalized cannabis at a federal level. There's some good information about it on the government website.

New pull request to add Baum mit Augen to privileged list in SOCVR github.com/Charcoal-SE/SmokeDetector/pull/517

Just found it, thanks

What file holds the users with feedback permissions?

@Brock I want to ask you something when you're online next

Oh, nevermind, that was one I posted on The Whiteboard on prog.se

There was one there where both the asker and the answerer are still active on the site.

If you guys don't want them, that's fine, we'll just delete them

I'm asking because those are the best ones we've come across after reviewing a few hundred so far.

They could be migrated by a moderator, but will otherwise be deleted if not migrated

Also this question

Also this question

Also this question

Also this question.

It is currently being reviewed through the wayward resource request rescue effort

Could this question be made on-topic here?

If edited, would you guys want it here, if so, what kind of editing would it need and is anyone interested in editing?

It seems like it has a nice conceptual answer, and the question could be made to fit that answer, then any of the more useless answers deleted

Currently being reviewed through the wayward resource requests rescure.

Sounds good, thought I would ask.

They suggested server fault, but I can't find anyone over there