Skip to main content
Ask Ubuntu

Return to Answer

added 413 characters in body
Source Link
kos
kos
  • 40.9k
  • 1
  • 23
  • 38

I decided to flag it for closure because the problem had "gone away".

Not quite. The problem still exists. What fooled you is the fact that the question also contained the answer. You interpreted "If I deselect the Reference field in Filter results, these explicit pictures go away" as the problem had gone away, which is undeniably true, but it indeed needed a workaround to be applied before doing so, so the question technically didn't fit the close reason:

This describes a problem that can't be reproduced that seemingly went away on its own or was only relevant to a very specific period of time. It's off-topic as it's unlikely to help future readers.

  • "This describes a problem that can't be reproduced" -> the problem is reproduceable on a default installation or by enabling "Reference" if previously disabled.
  • "that seemingly went away on its own" -> it didn't went away on its own, OP had to disable "Reference".
  • "It's off-topic as it's unlikely to help future readers" -> it'll most likely help anyone else with the same problem.

However I agree some reviews are tricky / misleading / inevitabily lead the reviewer to fail. In this specific case the system did the job well, but only for coincidence. Whatever initially apparently weird (read as in "interesting") question may get a number of upvotes high enough for it to become selectable for an audit even if the real problem is something pretty dumb like a typo, however that specific case is (luckily) pretty rare.

So you have a point. +1.

I decided to flag it for closure because the problem had "gone away".

Not quite. The problem still exists. What fooled you is the fact that the question also contained the answer. You interpreted "If I deselect the Reference field in Filter results, these explicit pictures go away" as the problem had gone away, which is undeniably true, but it indeed needed a workaround to be applied before doing so, so the question technically didn't fit the close reason:

This describes a problem that can't be reproduced that seemingly went away on its own or was only relevant to a very specific period of time. It's off-topic as it's unlikely to help future readers.

However I agree some reviews are tricky / misleading / inevitabily lead the reviewer to fail. In this specific case the system did the job well, but only for coincidence. Whatever initially apparently weird (read as in "interesting") question may get a number of upvotes high enough for it to become selectable for an audit even if the real problem is something pretty dumb like a typo, however that specific case is (luckily) pretty rare.

So you have a point. +1.

I decided to flag it for closure because the problem had "gone away".

Not quite. The problem still exists. What fooled you is the fact that the question also contained the answer. You interpreted "If I deselect the Reference field in Filter results, these explicit pictures go away" as the problem had gone away, which is undeniably true, but it indeed needed a workaround to be applied before doing so, so the question technically didn't fit the close reason:

This describes a problem that can't be reproduced that seemingly went away on its own or was only relevant to a very specific period of time. It's off-topic as it's unlikely to help future readers.

  • "This describes a problem that can't be reproduced" -> the problem is reproduceable on a default installation or by enabling "Reference" if previously disabled.
  • "that seemingly went away on its own" -> it didn't went away on its own, OP had to disable "Reference".
  • "It's off-topic as it's unlikely to help future readers" -> it'll most likely help anyone else with the same problem.

However I agree some reviews are tricky / misleading / inevitabily lead the reviewer to fail. In this specific case the system did the job well, but only for coincidence. Whatever initially apparently weird (read as in "interesting") question may get a number of upvotes high enough for it to become selectable for an audit even if the real problem is something pretty dumb like a typo, however that specific case is (luckily) pretty rare.

So you have a point. +1.

Source Link
kos
kos
  • 40.9k
  • 1
  • 23
  • 38

I decided to flag it for closure because the problem had "gone away".

Not quite. The problem still exists. What fooled you is the fact that the question also contained the answer. You interpreted "If I deselect the Reference field in Filter results, these explicit pictures go away" as the problem had gone away, which is undeniably true, but it indeed needed a workaround to be applied before doing so, so the question technically didn't fit the close reason:

This describes a problem that can't be reproduced that seemingly went away on its own or was only relevant to a very specific period of time. It's off-topic as it's unlikely to help future readers.

However I agree some reviews are tricky / misleading / inevitabily lead the reviewer to fail. In this specific case the system did the job well, but only for coincidence. Whatever initially apparently weird (read as in "interesting") question may get a number of upvotes high enough for it to become selectable for an audit even if the real problem is something pretty dumb like a typo, however that specific case is (luckily) pretty rare.

So you have a point. +1.