Timeline for Post duplicate autocomments as the Community user
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29 at 19:45 | history | edited | starball | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 148 characters in body
|
| Jun 29 at 11:28 | comment | added | muru | @Joachim as I said earlier, but why only duplicates and not the other close reasons? If the poster isn't permitted to start arguing with a random user about a vote to close as unclear or too broad or any of the site specific reasons, then why duplicates? Having a single user retract their vote is definitely not that important, if that doesn't apply for other votes. Just because this "ability" evolved out of an accidental deficiency in the system - and the workaround they used then - doesn't in anyway make it an actual necessity, or even the defining reason why it existed in the first place. | |
| Jun 29 at 11:11 | comment | added | Joachim | @muru Because the "possibly duplicate of x" comment informs the OP they might find an answer in the linked question, and allows them to edit their post to differentiate it from the proposed duplicate. Having a unique username, the OP can address them to react to how a proposed dupe is not actually a dupe, what details are missing, or whether an edit they made solves the problem, in which case that initial close-voter can retract their vote. | |
| Jun 29 at 8:55 | history | edited | starball | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 90 characters in body
|
| Jun 29 at 7:59 | comment | added | muru | Sorry, I must be missing something - nowhere in the answer do you say duplicates are not unique or special - you do write an entire paragraph singling out duplicate votes and then have a closing line comparing them to other review queues. Again: why are they particularly special when it comes to close votes in particular? As far as I know the only other close vote that leaves a comment is the on where the user writes out a reason themselves. At least that is understandable because the user is saying something specific that won't otherwise be made apparent to the poster. | |
| Jun 29 at 7:53 | comment | added | starball | as I said, duplicates are not particularly special. take a look at canned comments in LQA, for example. yes, I know some canned comments in other queues and by other mechanisms are left by the community user, but duplicates are not unique. | |
| Jun 29 at 7:46 | comment | added | muru | The more I consider this, the less this angle makes sense. The original close voter is just one person, you have to make your case for everybody else who reviews the post, so any such comment should be generally addressed and not targeting a specific user, which just encourages piling on that user. | |
| Jun 29 at 7:42 | comment | added | muru | Whatever you say is true for all other close votes, why are duplicates particularly special? Just because when they started this autocomment business because they had no better options, you got this side benefit ? | |
| Jun 29 at 3:49 | history | answered | starball | CC BY-SA 4.0 |