Timeline for Should we start "reviving" older challenges?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 8, 2018 at 15:56 | comment | added | Nathan Merrill | I did a brief post-mortem in chat as to why mine didn't really work. In essence, I was looking for 25 questions, and I didn't get 25 suggestions, let alone 25 upvoted suggestions. (Sure, we could make it smaller, but the smaller something is, the less effect it has) | |
| Oct 8, 2018 at 15:18 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | Re-reading, I feel that the mention of a team is badly phrased, and I'll think about how to improve that. I didn't mean to imply that you shouldn't go ahead without a team, but I think that the answer could be interpreted that way. What I want to express is that if various people want to do this, it would be better to coordinate rather than to each go forward independently. | |
| Oct 8, 2018 at 15:15 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | @J.Sallé, actually the prime concern with re-sandboxing is to update the question once, rather than updating it and then addressing a stream of comments pointing out flaws. Essentially it's the same reason that we use the sandbox for new questions. | |
| Oct 8, 2018 at 15:01 | comment | added | J. Sallé | I agree with every point you made, and had thought of the emotional attachment to the challenges we post as a possible setback, but your suggested workaround seems very fair to me. Not invalidating answers is also a concern, which is why re-sandboxing the challenge also seems sensible. | |
| Oct 8, 2018 at 8:45 | history | answered | Peter Taylor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |