Timeline for We're not a Q&A site. But what should be done about it?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 9, 2017 at 16:36 | history | edited | DJMcMayhem | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Trivial edit so I can change my vote
|
| Feb 12, 2016 at 8:33 | comment | added | Martin Ender Mod | @isaacg That one in particular is probably now officially invalid with orlp's latest meta question, but I get what you mean. Still, even in that case I'd rather trust the community's judgement on whether an answer should be valid or not than a single user's. | |
| Feb 12, 2016 at 8:24 | comment | added | isaacg | @MartinBüttner I'm thinking of submissions like this: codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/6142/20080 which are very popular joke submissions. | |
| Feb 12, 2016 at 8:20 | comment | added | Martin Ender Mod | @isaacg We have a fairly clear consensus on what should be done with "submissions that don't actually solve the question" (delete them). Especially when this applies to the leading answer, I'm sure people would pay attention. | |
| Feb 12, 2016 at 8:18 | comment | added | isaacg | There's a possible issue here, which is that submissions that don't actually solve the question are often posted, so accepting the best compliant solution is sometimes of value. This is especially relevant in older questions, and in questions with more answers. | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 21:41 | comment | added | Nathan Merrill | I would love for this to happen (more than any other feature listed here). | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 13:33 | comment | added | Qwertiy | I don't think so :) By the way, do you have enought rep to view deleted content on SO? What about idea with making subsites for some perposes? In case of CodeGolf, what about splitting the meta into few subsites? I think, I'll post a question sometime. | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 13:29 | comment | added | Martin Ender Mod | @Qwertiy "Populatity contests do not have objective creteria." hey, yet another reason that popularity contests should be off topic. ;) | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 13:15 | comment | added | Qwertiy | Populatity contests do not have objective creteria. What if I want to make a populaty contest using a set of questions where each new question appears after previous competition is finished? In this case accepted answer frezes the winner at some moment, but woting continues going. | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 13:11 | comment | added | Martin Ender Mod | @Qwertiy Sure, but there is still no reason to leave accepting up to a human because the criterion determining which answer should be accepted is entirely objective. | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 13:09 | comment | added | Qwertiy | What about time-limited challenges like cops and robbers? In them acceptanse means the competition is over. | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 8:07 | history | answered | Martin EnderMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |