Timeline for Dealing with low-quality questions that end up on Hot Network Questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:12 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.superuser.com/ with https://meta.superuser.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:12 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.superuser.com/ with https://meta.superuser.com/
|
|
| Aug 14, 2016 at 22:28 | comment | added | Braiam | Notice that that post you reference has been in many cases challenged because it can't be a blanket statement. You can delete good content of SU, so long you find a home from it. | |
| Aug 14, 2016 at 8:31 | comment | added | DavidPostill Mod | @fixer1234 And that is the missing option. If the question cannot be improved (for whatever reason) consider writing a new self-answered question (reusing the great answer). | |
| Aug 14, 2016 at 5:08 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @random, ideally, both question and answer should be high quality, and if the answer is high quality, we ought to be able to do the same for the question. If the answer is high quality, we shouldn't delete it because nobody has improved the question yet. The question can eventually be improved , but the answer can't be replaced. Instead of viewing it as delete: yes/no, it might be better to view it as delete: when. And we can spur people to action on the improvement, like what happened with this question. | |
| Aug 14, 2016 at 5:02 | history | edited | bwDraco | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 40 characters in body; added 10 characters in body; added 99 characters in body
|
| Aug 14, 2016 at 4:59 | comment | added | fixer1234 | I posted an answer on the previous meta question that spawned this one. I agree with everything except historically locking a question before all other options are exhausted, because that prevents improving the question, and even the possibility of reopening it and getting more good answers. Good answers answer something, and that can be the basis for re-engineering the question. Almost by definition, if you have a good answer, worst case, you can start there and write the question that it answers. | |
| Aug 14, 2016 at 4:22 | history | edited | bwDraco | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 130 characters in body
|
| Aug 14, 2016 at 3:43 | history | edited | bwDraco | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 189 characters in body; added 60 characters in body
|
| Aug 14, 2016 at 3:42 | comment | added | random Mod | You need both sides of the Q&A to be high quality | |
| Aug 14, 2016 at 3:39 | history | answered | bwDraco | CC BY-SA 3.0 |