Timeline for Why is looking for alternative programs "not constructive"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2020 at 13:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| 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/
|
|
| May 29, 2012 at 18:32 | comment | added | Jeff F. | The idea of superuser is to compile a list of posts that help resolve issues in a clear easy to find method; not just for the asking user but for future searches as well. The idea is to act as form of wiki as well in which the posts are edited to be nice and understandable in this spirit. If things like software recommendations and other types of questions that don't relate to resolving problems are fielded, the system becomes cluttered and makes answers more difficult to find. Correct me if I'm wrong? | |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 2:04 | comment | added | user541686 | @TomWijsman: +1 I'm always open to that as well :) | |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 1:06 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | @Mehrdad: Please understand that when edits are made to your questions, that I always try to do this from the standpoint of the author of the post. They are free to disagree with that and rollback; however, there is no point in aggravating my sole edit across comments and this meta question. I've misunderstood your intention, I was wrong, I'm sorry. We've been overreacting to each other, let's stop here. I don't expect any response of you and will no longer follow-up on this, let's not put anything negative towards one another and continue our paths... :) | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 22:50 | vote | accept | user541686 | ||
| Feb 15, 2012 at 17:39 | comment | added | user541686 | @IvoFlipse: Ohhh I see, I didn't know that. Yeah I'd have to agree, most of the answers weren't terribly good (the XnView one was great though!). I guess if that was the reason then I can't help but agree... | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 13:00 | comment | added | Ivo Flipse | @Mehrdad I left a comment hoping the user would improve his answer. But then I noticed all the bottom answers were pretty crap. So I left a flag for the other mods, saying I thought the question had produced little value. So it got closed and I think it was for the better | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 6:43 | comment | added | Psycogeek | . . . The question would also work on 1000 other sites , until it got into the endless debate area, where a moderator tired of reading it or seeing it pop up, would swoop in and end it. From my perceptions of these events, it was sometimes a terrible thing to do, and in others a good thing to do. In many cases I feel that the moderator should not have to Look :-) But that is the job. Some way to ignore it until it is a problem that needs Swooping. | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 6:43 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | @psyco yes you're basically agreeing with me, so I wondered why you'd direct the comment at me instead of someone with a different opinion. In my defence I was awake for 5 minutes or so when I posted the previous comment | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 6:36 | comment | added | Psycogeek | @DanielBeck I think, I was mostly agreeing with you? I do not know how to feel about the policy, I would not want to be in the position of attempting to make the judgement call. As per the actual title, and some use of words in the title or the question, it is rediculous to pick over some wording and create intention out of it. For the, who knows what is going on or what will happen? that is humans. Everybody had a point, everybody had good points, the questioner had a question that could be asked on 1000 other sites, without it being a problem till it got into the "this is just spam now" | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 6:16 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | @Psycogeek Why are you asking me and not one of those supporting this policy? Note that "I have a problem and want to solve it" usually works better than "I want a drawing program". It's the asking for recommendations that's bad, not the recommending software in answers. | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 0:47 | comment | added | Psycogeek | @DanielBeck IF the use of specific software to solution a problem is not an acceptable method of solving a problem. Then using NOTEPAD ,or one of the 50 CMD programs to solve a problem, and then you might as well shut down the Site. I cant think of anything that is accomplished on computers without Software, and recommending the use of software :-) So at the least there is a line somewhere. Everyone not using software , please explain how :-) | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 19:21 | comment | added | user541686 | Hmmm I see, ok, thanks for the answer. (What was weird was, I noticed today that they even linked to the question on Google+, so the SO team must've obviously liked it... but then it got closed after all the comments. :( ) | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 19:15 | comment | added | iglvzx | shh... don't tell ♦random. ;) | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 18:53 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | @Mehrdad There's some leeway if your question is interesting IIRC, and therefore a judgment call. It's not a clear party line all moderators follow equally. It's a pretty crappy situation, which is why I want this cleared up. It's one of the issues that made me post this topic. | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 18:51 | comment | added | user541686 | Oh wow, that's indeed surprising. But what's weird is that diamond moderators did see the question before (e.g. Ivo Flipse even commented) -- they just didn't happen to be random! So I really felt it was the edit that caused this, not the question itself... | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 18:41 | history | answered | Daniel BeckMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |