Skip to main content
36 events
when toggle format what by license comment
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/
Jun 23, 2015 at 6:54 history edited harrymc CC BY-SA 3.0
added 304 characters in body
Jun 1, 2015 at 12:20 history edited harrymc CC BY-SA 3.0
added 106 characters in body
May 31, 2015 at 1:13 answer added Abraxas timeline score: 1
May 29, 2015 at 11:38 history edited harrymc CC BY-SA 3.0
added 217 characters in body
May 29, 2015 at 11:32 vote accept harrymc
May 27, 2015 at 18:31 answer added Chenmunka timeline score: 12
May 27, 2015 at 14:22 history tweeted twitter.com/#!/super_user/status/603566956730568704
May 26, 2015 at 18:12 history edited harrymc CC BY-SA 3.0
added 11 characters in body
May 26, 2015 at 18:07 history edited harrymc CC BY-SA 3.0
summary
May 26, 2015 at 17:40 comment added Karan @harrymc: We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Painting all downvotes on old answers as suspect and thus needing to be prevented, while happily allowing upvotes will turn the whole voting system on its head.
May 26, 2015 at 14:46 answer added Stumbler timeline score: 2
May 26, 2015 at 14:39 comment added harrymc @Karan: While downvote on old posts/answers might be suspect, upvote certainly means that the answer is still useful. As an additional idea, it might be useful to indicate the "Date of last upvote" on old answers.
May 26, 2015 at 9:21 comment added Karan @harrymc: I'm simply going by your own wording of option 2. You haven't mentioned disallowing upvotes on old posts anywhere that I can see.
May 26, 2015 at 9:16 comment added harrymc @Karan: The demand is not to stop downvotes, but ensure that the voter understands the situation. I also don't prefer my point 2.
May 26, 2015 at 8:02 comment added Karan @BiTinerary: Don't forget to use @! "if a post is several years old should it be continually subjected to voting" - If you pose this question to people, I bet they'll all agree that downvotes on old answers suck but will be only too happy to continue being upvoted for old answers. So it's not about freezing voting completely. Clearly the demand is only to stop downvoting and not upvoting, and I don't agree with this.
May 26, 2015 at 7:56 answer added Oliver Salzburg timeline score: 12
May 26, 2015 at 5:56 comment added user431052 No, I wasn't suggesting that your were attacking him, maybe "support" would've been a better word. I see more clearly what you were saying and where you're coming from. I just think regardless of answers/questions, if a post is several years old should it be continually subjected to voting? Especially when there're more relevant issues at hand? If this community does it's job then the best/correct answer should be prevalent long before. I think 1 and 2 will end up looking "too ugly" since it demands user prompts on various levels. Whereas 2 can simply be incorporated into how SE works.
May 26, 2015 at 4:44 comment added Karan If something has to be done (and I'm not sure it's such a huge problem right now), I'm not opposed to option 1. Option 3 would results in such notices being pasted across the site, including posts where all answers might end up with these warnings. Unless it's somehow done discreetly I think it'll just look way too ugly, plus I don't believe it'll accomplish anything useful. It's common sense (or should be) that older answers relevant to older tech should not be followed blindly on modern systems. So all in all only option 1 would get my vote. BTW, wouldn't this make more sense on meta.SE?
May 26, 2015 at 4:32 comment added Karan @BiTinerary: I wasn't talking about freezing Qs but As (which the OP was also focused on), but why shouldn't the same rule apply to Qs as well? Just because something (Q or A) flew under the radar and escaped scrutiny "within a reasonable time period" (for whatever definition of "reasonable"), does that mean it automatically deserves protection against downvotes forever? Note: I'm not advocating that older answers that're no longer relevant should be downvoted. That's indeed silly. As for defending Ramhound, are you addressing that towards me? No part of my comment was attacking him.
May 26, 2015 at 3:28 comment added user431052 @Karan to the contrary I'm most appealed to option 2. If the question isn't informative enough, this should be addressed within a reasonable time period. That's a pretty underlying motive of Stack Exchange, no? In defense of Ramhound, I can absolutely see older questions being downvoted because of "up-to-date solutions" or offering something outside the specific question at hand. Disallowing votes conforms to both issues. Most importantly, older issues should be protected. StackExchange addresses MANY people, over substantial periods of time and information should be available respectively.
May 25, 2015 at 21:55 answer added Journeyman GeekMod timeline score: 26
May 25, 2015 at 20:21 comment added Karan Just because a bad answer somehow escaped scrutiny (irrespective of whether it already has downvotes or not) there's no reason to automatically protect it after a few years. I don't think option 2 is a good idea.
May 25, 2015 at 19:22 comment added harrymc @Ramhound: Many times a downvote of an old answer is accompanied by the posting of a new answer. It also happens that someone posts a bounty on an old post asking for better and more up-to-date solutions. So a post may have new answers, but IMO old answers should still be protected.
May 25, 2015 at 18:01 answer added fixer1234 timeline score: 2
May 25, 2015 at 17:51 comment added Ramhound I would agree. Questions that are older then 2 years with answers older than 2 years should have a notice indicating the question was talking about older technology. I doubt this will stop the "new users" who submit an answer indicating they should install Windows 7 SP1 when the question was about Windows XP.
May 25, 2015 at 13:26 comment added harrymc The 3rd alternative together with the 1st one should probably be enough to solve this problem.
May 25, 2015 at 13:25 comment added ᔕᖺᘎᕊ in fact, 3 is sounding better now :P
May 25, 2015 at 13:24 history edited harrymc CC BY-SA 3.0
added 280 characters in body
May 25, 2015 at 13:16 comment added ᔕᖺᘎᕊ if we do enable the 2nd option, then we'd need to make sure you can downvote posts that are already negatviely scored - you might stumble upon an already bad answer a few years later - you should still be able to downvote them!
May 25, 2015 at 13:14 comment added harrymc @ᔕᖺᘎᕊ: It's drastic, certainly, but what will we do with down-votes in the close future when we will have answers dating from 10 years ago? Both methods can be adopted. For example: Method 1 for answers older than 3 years, method 2 for 5 years. Up-votes should always be allowed, for appreciation of old answers that are still useful.
May 25, 2015 at 13:08 comment added ᔕᖺᘎᕊ first option seems good. But the second is a bit too drastic don't you think?
May 25, 2015 at 13:07 history edited harrymc CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 18 characters in body
May 25, 2015 at 10:03 history edited harrymc CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 7 characters in body
May 25, 2015 at 9:57 history asked harrymc CC BY-SA 3.0