Timeline for Let's refine and clarify our off-topic close reasons
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2020 at 14:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:25 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://askubuntu.com/ with https://askubuntu.com/
|
|
| Oct 25, 2014 at 7:45 | comment | added | muru | @Seth "If you have not taken the time to convince yourself that this question does indeed deserve to be closed then you are abusing your close vote privilege." I see EOL release, I am convinced. Nothing more needed. If you or anybody else feels different, it's up to you or them to prove that it's not. I've retracted close votes before, and I'll again. | |
| Oct 25, 2014 at 7:42 | comment | added | muru | @Seth see the parallel: is any post of an unofficial derivative on-topic unless someone can prove that its not specific to that derivative? | |
| Oct 25, 2014 at 7:41 | comment | added | muru | @Seth Your first example was an error in a third party program, where someone needs demonstrate that it occurs in a supported release. | |
| Oct 25, 2014 at 7:38 | comment | added | muru | @Seth It is covered by the wording, but this example is a case where four people did not pay attention to the question. If they had taken a minute to read the question, they'd have seen it was not a problem. | |
| Oct 25, 2014 at 7:37 | comment | added | muru | @Seth The reviewer is expected to justify a review, yes. However, in the current wording, nothing more than the question is needed to prove it is offtopic - in that sense, the burden of proof is on the poster, since the poster must prove that the issue appears in a supported release, and reword the question accordingly. With your proposed wording, a reviewer will have to test on all supported releases, since even if one supported release is affected, it would on topic. | |
| Oct 25, 2014 at 1:21 | comment | added | Braiam | @muru I recommend you to read my comment below the question. | |
| Oct 25, 2014 at 1:12 | comment | added | Seth Mod | I also don't understand what you mean by "nless someone conclusively proves that: ... The question is independent of release". Did someone need to prove this was independent of release? How about my first example? What kind of proof is needed other than the question itself? If an answer doesn't need tailoring to the EoL release than it isn't release specific and thus shouldn't be closed! This isn't hard, so I'm not sure why you seem to be implying it is... | |
| Oct 25, 2014 at 1:09 | comment | added | Seth Mod | and the second example isn't covered by existing wording (note I say "wording" not policy, no policy should be changing here, just the wording because it doesn't reflect the policy). The question got 4 close votes and almost got closed. Wasting 7 peoples time, the 4 close voters and the 3 people who left it open. We don't want that. | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 21:09 | comment | added | Seth Mod | If you have not taken the time to convince yourself that this question does indeed deserve to be closed then you are abusing your close vote privilege. Not only does this harm the site by getting rid of good content and wasting people's time, but you are projecting a wrong impression of the site's policies and being a bad example. I have some more to say on this issue too, but not the time right now. | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 21:09 | comment | added | Seth Mod | On the contrary, the proposed wording does not shift the burden of proof from the OP to the reviewer. The burden of proof was already on the reviewer! While we do expect askers to have a basic understanding on site scope there is no such thing as "closed until further notice" or "closed until you can prove it's ok". The burden of proof that a question is a bad fit for the site is always on each and every individual reviewer to decide if the question is within our scope or not. | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 20:27 | history | edited | muru | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 473 characters in body
|
| Oct 24, 2014 at 20:15 | comment | added | muru | @Seth also, not everything. The second example is already covered by the current wording. Not need for modification there. | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 20:12 | comment | added | muru | @Mateo no need. Let them post on Unix & Linux. If they can show that the question is release-independent, we'll flag for migration. | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 20:10 | comment | added | Mateo | "unless someone[...]proves that" so you are saying in this situation they would not be closed? this is why the wording should be updated to reflect the situations where EOL's are not unequivocally off-topic. | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 20:10 | comment | added | muru | @Seth let me clarify: unless someone proves it's not specific, I'll vote to close. (In that case, you provided the proof.) The proposed wording shifts the burden of proof from the poster to the reviewer, where as I want it to be solidly on the poster. If the poster can't prove it, let them go to Unix & Linux. | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 19:56 | comment | added | Seth Mod | I don't understand.. You are only reaffirming everything I already stated.. Unless you mean to say you would close this. | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 19:56 | vote | accept | SethMod | ||
| Oct 24, 2014 at 19:56 | |||||
| Oct 24, 2014 at 19:40 | history | answered | muru | CC BY-SA 3.0 |