Timeline for Super User website applications policy
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
55 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 7, 2017 at 16:14 | comment | added | Donald Duck | @V15I0N That's true, but it's better to close the other one as a duplicate of this one because the links to the profile pages in the comments don't work in the other one. | |
| Aug 12, 2017 at 18:42 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 18, 2017 at 3:14 | |||||
| Aug 12, 2017 at 18:25 | comment | added | V15I0N | Possible duplicate of Super User website applications policy | |
| Aug 8, 2017 at 17:48 | history | reopened | DavidPostillMod | ||
| Aug 8, 2017 at 17:47 | history | edited | DavidPostillMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 288 characters in body
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 8:59 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.superuser.com/ with https://meta.superuser.com/
|
|
| Mar 8, 2017 at 16:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://img638.imageshack.us/ with https://img638.imageshack.us/
|
|
| Nov 2, 2014 at 13:54 | history | edited | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Expansion. Used the official name of this site. Copy edited. Added some context.
|
| Sep 9, 2013 at 13:01 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Sep 12, 2013 at 5:31 | |||||
| Feb 25, 2012 at 15:21 | history | edited | Simon Sheehan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 5 characters in body; edited tags
|
| May 12, 2011 at 8:27 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
insert duplicate link
|
|
| May 12, 2011 at 8:27 | history | closed |
fretje Sathyajith BhatMod |
exact duplicate | |
| May 9, 2011 at 18:09 | history | migrated | from meta.stackexchange.com (revisions) | ||
| Apr 19, 2010 at 19:57 | answer | added | Jeff Martin | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 26, 2010 at 1:21 | answer | added | Herb Caudill | timeline score: 10 | |
| Feb 20, 2010 at 10:25 | comment | added | BinaryMisfit | I have posted a new answer I know you will see, however I am interested in your thoughts on the topic. | |
| Feb 20, 2010 at 10:07 | answer | added | BinaryMisfit | timeline score: 11 | |
| Feb 20, 2010 at 7:14 | answer | added | NoCatharsis | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 20, 2010 at 1:54 | answer | added | Allie the Icon | timeline score: 8 | |
| Feb 20, 2010 at 0:06 | comment | added | Luiscencio | Diago is evil =] | |
| Feb 19, 2010 at 22:07 | answer | added | Zombies | timeline score: 7 | |
| Feb 19, 2010 at 20:06 | answer | added | ceejayoz | timeline score: 8 | |
| Feb 19, 2010 at 14:43 | comment | added | Peter Turner | @Diago, @Ivo you've hit the nail on the head, the only possible reason for closing web app related question is the static they create and Jeff's estimation that answering my esoteric printer issues completes a website in a way that answering my universal gmail issues cannot. | |
| Feb 19, 2010 at 14:09 | answer | added | Peter Turner | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 19, 2010 at 9:23 | answer | added | torpesco | timeline score: 8 | |
| Feb 19, 2010 at 0:17 | answer | added | Arkaaito | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 23:31 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | @Ivo, see last comment to Diago. | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 23:31 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | @Diago, I'm wrong, Jeff has said that you're doing what he wants. I've edited that into my question. | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 22:03 | answer | added | Peter Turner | timeline score: 9 | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 21:17 | comment | added | BinaryMisfit | @Ivo Thanks. Finally someone undestands what I have been butting my head against. The issue at the moment is not arround interpreting the FAQ, the problem is dealing what is on the site, and a lot of the questions end up falling away due to the big influx of website questions. Unlike SO, we don't have users taht can cover the questions we miss. I still see questions from 3 months ago popping up and the OP has already lost interest and left the site. | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 21:02 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | @Ivo, that's an interesting search, I didn't realize we had that much of a problem, I'll have to start trying to work on that list. | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 21:01 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | @Diago, I'm of the opinion that it's not about changing policy, it's about interpreting the policy that's there. | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 20:45 | comment | added | Ivo Flipse | @Lance: Given the quantity of questions that can be asked on web-apps alone, I think the request for a new-SE site is certainly justified. SUs current (restricted) scope already gives it more questions than are being answered (superuser.com/search?q=answers:0). Also based on the amount of forums related to Windows, OSX or Linux problems, I think we have more than enough challenges ahead of us without those kind of questions. | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 20:44 | comment | added | BinaryMisfit | @Lance. For the record I deleted my answer because this topic is going in circles for me at least. Jeff at the end of the day makes the call and we abide by it. If the policy is changed it will be implemented. | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 20:29 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | @Diago, Ok, I sent him an email. Listening to that podcast has only confirmed to me that the website stuff was only about the simple social networking kind of sites. | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 20:21 | comment | added | BinaryMisfit | @Lance. You will have to take that up with Jeff. He approved the new FAQ and in fact it was posted on Meta for review before it went up. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/35733/update-the-superuser-faq. | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 20:05 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | @Diago, Ok, I listened to the applicable part and both Joel and Jeff agreed that Gmail would be ok, because it's an app. Please relisten to that relevant part, from approx. 25:00 to 30:50, and let me know what's transpired since that conversation. Thanks. | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 19:55 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | @Diago, OK, I found podcast #76, blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/12/podcast-76 | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 19:47 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | @Diago, I looked all over the blog site, but all I can find is references like this, blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/08/super-user-now-public, that back me up. When you find the time could you please edit some links for reference into your answer. | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 19:06 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | @Diago, I wish I could listen to all the podcasts, I'll try and track that one down and listen to it. | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 19:01 | comment | added | BinaryMisfit | As much as I admire your passion I am almost 99% sure we are not going to change the policy on SU, as it has been driven by the site. However good luck. I for one am not supporting this move, since I am one of 3 moderators that have to deal with the behind the scenes issues with these questions, and it was something highlighted by the majority of the community. Jeff and Joel also extensively discussed it in a podcast and the end result was the implementation of the new policy. | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 18:50 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | @Diago, As you know this is very important to me, since the current policy is really limiting the usefulness of SuperUser to me (and I believe to many other people). I want SuperUser to succeed and have always tried to do my part to move it forward. | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 18:48 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | @Diago, I was just hoping for more attention to this topic, and more discussion. I will pick the answer I favor when it gets near the end. | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 18:46 | comment | added | BinaryMisfit | @Lance. Could you please clarify the bounty. I can't figure out why there is one. Do you want something specific to happen which is indicated somewhere? | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 18:36 | answer | added | Evan Carroll | timeline score: 8 | |
| Feb 17, 2010 at 18:55 | comment | added | BinaryMisfit | I will bring up the point with Jeff. However if it involves a problem with the a smartphone connecting to a computer or synchronising to a computer it will be allowed. | |
| Feb 17, 2010 at 17:11 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | @Diago, it's on a smartphone, but the wording on smartphones, combined with the wording on internet stuff is vague enough in the FAQ that I have no idea if it'd be ok to ask. | |
| Feb 17, 2010 at 17:09 | comment | added | BinaryMisfit | If Opera Mini was running on a PC, SU would be the right place. If not then no it would not have been. | |
| Feb 16, 2010 at 21:03 | comment | added | Ivo Flipse | It's not that I have a personal dislike of these questions. I would love to ask questions on Android applications, Gmail tweaks or Wordpress desktop apps, but I agree that SU is not the place for them. However, that shouldn't stop us from wanting a site where we CAN ask these questions. | |
| Feb 16, 2010 at 20:59 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | I think it's problematic to make distinctions between applications based on how they're served up: desktop or thin client or browser. | |
| Feb 16, 2010 at 20:54 | comment | added | Ivo Flipse | I think the problem is that there's no platform for asking question on webbased products, not that SU should be the platform for it. | |
| Feb 16, 2010 at 17:25 | answer | added | fretje | timeline score: 21 | |
| Feb 16, 2010 at 17:15 | answer | added | John Rudy | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 16, 2010 at 17:02 | history | asked | Lance Roberts | CC BY-SA 2.5 |