Timeline for Super User website applications policy
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2010 at 18:01 | history | migrated | from meta.stackexchange.com (revisions) | ||
| Mar 19, 2010 at 17:54 | comment | added | user144182 | I would like to point out that claiming web app related questions only account for 1% of tagged questions is hard to support when the current policy prevents those very same questions. Basic reasoning should show this is a fallacious statistic. | |
| Mar 3, 2010 at 21:18 | comment | added | Cawas | @Diago I still don't get the bottom line. Making a stackexchange site wide open for any subject is a problem with organization or bandwidth cost? | |
| Feb 28, 2010 at 18:45 | comment | added | Diago | @Herb. However that still only makes up aother 1% of the total questions on the site. So we are looking at 2% of Super User questions. Compared to each other the figures look great, compared to the overall question count, it is a small minority. | |
| Feb 28, 2010 at 17:25 | comment | added | Herb Caudill | The relevant question counts to display would be Gmail/Gcal (341) vs Outlook (319), Google Maps (23) vs Microsoft Streets & Trips (0), Google Docs/Apps/Spreadsheets (106) vs Excel/Word (513). The community on this site to date shows comparable interest in web apps versus their offline equivalents. | |
| Feb 21, 2010 at 16:33 | comment | added | Sathya | We are the bad guys because our names end up on the closed questions As a moderator another forum I so feel this. | |
| Feb 21, 2010 at 10:02 | comment | added | Diago | I should not post on the Trilogy after 22:00 at night. I should not post on the Trilogy after 22:00 at night. I should not post on the Trilogy after 22:00 at night. I should not post on the Trilogy after 22:00 at night. I should not post on the Trilogy after 22:00 at night. I should not post on the Trilogy after 22:00 at night. | |
| Feb 21, 2010 at 3:16 | comment | added | quack quixote | @Diago: at present there are exactly 0 [macosx] tagged questions. (there is one [macos] but it actually deserves it.) :) | |
| Feb 21, 2010 at 1:53 | comment | added | Diago | @Lance Your welcome. For the record, to get 20% you will need to find 6000 questions related to Web Applications. All I can say is good luck, I will be very surprised if there really is that many. Also to be fair those have to be questions that exclude social networks, since that's what I looked at as well all though I didn't include Facebook and Twitter in this list. Out of interest a quick look at just the [windows], [windows-7] and [snow-leopard] tags reveals that they combined are just over 6000+ questions excluding [macosx] and those tagged wrong. | |
| Feb 21, 2010 at 1:49 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | @Diago, I can't say I'm 100% convinced, I'd have to do a lot more research on it (I'll try to do some this next week). I do think it's a lot more than 1%, but am willing to admit that my research wasn't deep enough to be sure of my 20% number. What I'll do when I have extra SU time from now on is go through all the "google" questions and tag them appropriately (since I have the rep to change tags), then after I get through all of them we can revisit the numbers. Thanks for your effort to meet me halfway (and farther). | |
| Feb 20, 2010 at 20:40 | comment | added | Diago | @Lance. It is also hard to determine what you consider more realistic? The data is available and your free to research yourself. The algorithm however has been determined and is clear. If it runs inside a browser and the support is related to a function of the site, and not the browser, it won't be allowed. | |
| Feb 20, 2010 at 19:39 | comment | added | Diago | @Lance. I updated it just with the Google tag but did post a note. If I look at anything related to just Google including calender I can't add more then another 200 questions to the list. The point of my answer is this however in summary. We are splitting hairs over 1% of Super User questions at this stage. Therefore as much as I respect your opinion on this, the figures speak for themselves whether we like to or not. I did this exercise to confirm this for myself as much as for you and the others. | |
| Feb 20, 2010 at 19:32 | comment | added | Diago | @Lance. I will add the stats for Google but to be fair it still just splitting hairs further. Just because the word Google appears in a post doesn't mean it is about google. Are you 100% convinced if everything was tagged correctly we would have 1000s of web applications questions? Also as mentioned I was looking at what specifically is listed in the FAQ, and Jeff only looks at the tags, not Google results. | |
| Feb 20, 2010 at 19:23 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | Part of the problem is that it's still hard to determine whether "the question directly violates the policy of the site". It'd be nice to have a more deterministic algorithm. If you can update the stats to something more realistic I might accept this answer, since it covers it all well. | |
| Feb 20, 2010 at 19:18 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | I think this is a reasonable answer, though I believe your numbers are off, instead of doing a tag search, do a word search on "google", since almost anything to do with google is now off limits. I think your stats just show us that things aren't getting tagged correctly. | |
| Feb 20, 2010 at 11:03 | comment | added | quack quixote | tend to agree with your stance of "it's on the close list but i won't close it". that's reasonable and responsible. i'm not sure about clearing close flags tho -- there are certain times when that's desirable (they don't seem to be cleared properly on question close/reopen) -- but if mods had that ability the community might not be able to override your decision not to close a question, which i think is a good thing. (you can always reopen once closed, of course.) | |
| Feb 20, 2010 at 10:07 | history | answered | Diago | CC BY-SA 2.5 |