-10
\$\begingroup\$

As per Let's allow newer languages/versions for older challenges, we no longer need to mark answers that utilize languages created after the challenge as noncompeting. However, there are still 917 + 207 = 1124 answers with that word in the body or header.

I think they should be removed as they add nothing of value and are just an eyesore. However, I'm not going to do it all in big chunks by myself as I don't want a re-do of my Sandbox flood a while ago. And Martin told me not to.

So, can we set up a time or date when people can go through all the instances of "noncompeting", "non-competing" and "non competing" on the site, finding which answers need to be deleted (as some users mark invalid answers noncompeting) and which ones simply need the word removed?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Getting a group of people to do this causes no less of a problem than one person doing it. Martin's comment still applies - the front page would be flooded with otherwise meaningless edits. \$\endgroup\$ – trichoplax Aug 2 '17 at 21:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ @trichoplax I understand. I'm not just trying to get a group to do it, I'm trying to get a set time where everyone knows that the Active page will be temporarily flooded. \$\endgroup\$ – MD XF Aug 2 '17 at 21:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ Note that the separate task of deleting invalid answers won't flood the front page as they will just disappear, but I'd still suggest being kind to the PPCG mods and not flagging large batches of answers at once - each one needs to be checked by hand and slows down the processing of more important flags. \$\endgroup\$ – trichoplax Aug 2 '17 at 21:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ @trichoplax Well, we wouldn't necessarily have to flag; we could just vote to delete... possibly send answers that need to be deleted to TNB, or a separate chatroom? \$\endgroup\$ – MD XF Aug 2 '17 at 21:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ Where it's an option deleting sounds ideal. \$\endgroup\$ – trichoplax Aug 2 '17 at 21:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ I understand - your question wording is clear. I just don't see a reason to flood the frontpage, whether with or without prior warning. \$\endgroup\$ – trichoplax Aug 2 '17 at 21:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ Another search term for consideration \$\endgroup\$ – ETHproductions Aug 3 '17 at 0:56
12
\$\begingroup\$

Please Don't

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how often do really old posts show up on the front page? Unless you keep editing them, not very often. So, now that the new decree has been set in place, let's just ignore the old posts and apply the policy to the new ones. I'm not saying that you're not allowed to edit a single post, but don't go looking through all of the posts to do this.

Additionally, flooding the front page at a set time where everyone knows what's going on is still a bad idea. It will bury potentially good posts that nobody will see while the front page is being flooded. It would be a nuisance because you get notified when someone edits your post.

So, instead of looking for old posts that aren't really even seen anymore and making them seen, flooding the front page, and placing otherwise useless edits, just apply the policy to new answers and don't go looking for old ones.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .