0

This question already has an answer here:

I have ended up at this article and I wanted to review the link to see if it's something that solves my problem - but it's broken.

Usually I would edit the article remove the link and reword things, except in this instance I don't believe that would improve the quality of it, but I don't see any alternative.

What would be the best alternative actions to consider?

marked as duplicate by rɑːdʒɑ, Mark Kirby, user364819, Pilot6, Kevin Bowen Feb 16 '16 at 22:18

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    I agree with the duplicate from @kos leave a comment for the OP, they are an 11k user and still active, alert them and they can edit. – Mark Kirby Feb 12 '16 at 9:17
  • @kos these two questions are asking entirely different things.. – Seth Feb 12 '16 at 14:55
  • @Seth Per how I read it the gist of this question is: "How do I deal with this outdated post?", which seems to be the same thing asked in the other question... Or I'm missing something? – kos Feb 12 '16 at 15:19
  • @kos the article you linked is about outdated questions where the highest up-voted answer isn't relevant any more, and a lower up-voted answer is. Where as my question was more related to articles that link to a blog post or tutorial (is against the best practice) but since half of the article is missing it's now a low quality question which doesn't help anyone. – ash Feb 12 '16 at 15:49
  • Indeed, but the underlying problem seems the same to me, and that would be: "What to do in case an outdated post needs revision?". And I suppose the course of action would be the same either, but if you have reasons to think this case needs to be approached differently or at least examined more in depth in a separate post let me know and I'll remove my close vote. To mee it seems like we're talking of the same thing, and that the fact that one is about questions instead of answers and links instead of information is irrelevant in function of the action to take. – kos Feb 12 '16 at 16:10
  • But again, I might be wrong and I may be overlooking the reasons why this should be treated differently, so please let me know if this is the case. – kos Feb 12 '16 at 16:17
  • @kos I see your point - but the difference in this question is more a fact an old post is outdated and ununseful or the accepted answer is no longer the valid answer. My question is about having the majority of a questions contents removed - since it's a link we can't simply rollback the revision or paste the contents of the article. Here i'm asking on how this is improved. Whilst the article you showed we can simply only change our votes to make the more relevant answer more relevant? – ash Feb 12 '16 at 16:52
  • Now I see the problem, I read your question as in "How do I deal with this outdated post?" rather than "Is it better to edit it or to do something else?". My bad, they're not the same question. I'll remove my close vote. – kos Feb 12 '16 at 17:12
  • On another note I think the answer is still in the linked question: it's always better to include the essential information in the post instead of linking to another page. The best thing to do IMO would be to ask the user to do that if they're still active; if they don't answer etc, then I suppose the only way to fix that would be to include the essential information yourself via an edit. – kos Feb 12 '16 at 17:12
  • 1
    (by the way, if you didn't try to find an old version from which to copy yet, Google's cached version of the article is still available) – kos Feb 12 '16 at 17:12
  • @kos nice spot (will try that in future if necessary), I will use that to make an edit if the OP doesn't respond. – ash Feb 12 '16 at 17:26

Browse other questions tagged .