Timeline for Re-assign accepted answer years later?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 2, 2017 at 15:45 | comment | added | user | @MonkeyZeus IMO, the version shown in the screenshot and the version being asked about should at least match. You could approach that in several ways, but I would probably go with something much like what I already included in my answer, maybe not including the word "superficially". | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 15:41 | comment | added | MonkeyZeus | That specific comment was for illustrative purposes only; it could be worded more nicely and still have the same effect. Comments like that have the ability to derail a question and create a mob mentality. I wanted my question to generate some steam and plow through to get good answers. Anyways, I've updated the question to use "presently 2015.007.20033". Do you think that will suffice or should I opt to remove the version number completely? | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 15:39 | comment | added | user | @MonkeyZeus That particular type of comment would in my opinion be a prime candidate for flagging as "not constructive". | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 15:38 | comment | added | MonkeyZeus | I've considered your assessment before posting this question. The original intent of including a version number is to mitigate the chance that someone using an ancient version of Reader doesn't make a comment like "Mine doesn't do that you stupids, hurr durr". I'd like to keep the question open as a central repository for SEO purposes because the issue crosses version borders but the solution is just Adobe's attempt at smoke n' mirrors. I think I will remove the version number. When Journeyman said "Considering its not version specific" I think he was referring to the presence of the issue. | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 15:25 | history | answered | user | CC BY-SA 3.0 |