Timeline for This question isn't remotely subjective
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:48 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://cs.stackexchange.com/ with https://cs.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:44 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stats.stackexchange.com/ with https://stats.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://electronics.stackexchange.com/ with https://electronics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:19 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 12, 2017 at 7:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 8:26 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 8:26 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 24, 2016 at 2:30 | comment | added | gnat | @RobertHarvey you may probably enjoy this discussion: Question put on hold for absolutely no reason. "There seem to be pandemic.." of (coursework?) questions involving exponentiation sign recently | |
| Sep 24, 2016 at 1:57 | comment | added | Qix - MONICA WAS MISTREATED | Thank you Thomas, and thank you for the stack recommendation - I didn't even know it existed. | |
| Sep 24, 2016 at 1:56 | vote | accept | Qix - MONICA WAS MISTREATED | ||
| Sep 23, 2016 at 4:04 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | Discussion continues here. | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 3:27 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | Also, since when did closure of a question constitute punishment? Closing questions has never been about that. I've spent a lifetime (in SE moderator years) trying to convince people to not take closing personally (especially on questions that have been asked and answered), and here you are advocating the opposite. | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 3:23 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | What are the other subject-matter exceptions that are not part of SDLC that are still on-topic here? Is History the only one that's left? (I note that History is not one of The Four Bullets™) | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 3:22 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | @RobertHarvey A question about history (that actually happened, as opposed to what-ifs) can be answered objectively. It has to be, since it happened. However, it may go unanswered because no one has the information or experiences needed to answer it. Just because people may post opinions doesn't mean that the asker should be punished. | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 3:19 | comment | added | Robert Harvey |
If we close it before an answer, how do we know if there is a good answer. -- You can make that argument with any subjective question. In fact, more than one OP has tried to make that argument with me to justify their subjective questions. The essential point stands: you can't evaluate a question based on the answers it might receive.
|
|
| Sep 23, 2016 at 3:18 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | @RobertHarvey Are you proposing closing on-topic questions because no one here may be able to answer them? If we close it before an answer, how do we know if there is a good answer. I think it requires moderation to remove low quality answers, answers without sufficient explanation or sources, or opinions. If a question can be answered by someone with experiences and knowledge rather than personal opinion, the question simply cannot be primarily opinion based. | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 3:15 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | To be fair, the question wasn't actually closed as off-topic... It was closed as primarily opinion-based, which I happened to agree with. Now it may be true that subsequent answers can prove that a question is not really opinion-based, but we can't rely on some fictional, as-yet unposted answers to determine question subjectivity. We have to go with what we have. | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 3:14 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | @enderland I found some discussion here with Shog about it. I also said it in this comment, so it must have come up before August 12. I'm sure if you look in chat and in Meta posts between July 22nd and August 12th you can find some more references to the fact that the actual scope wasn't changing, just how the scope is being presented to be more clear and easily understood. | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 3:06 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | @enderland I'd have to dig around to find it, but it was stated several times that the scope was being clarified, but not changed (at least without further meta discussion). We were OK with removing licensing from the list of things that were on-topic because Law and Open Source do it better. We last discussed history in 2013 and decided it was on-topic. | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 3:03 | comment | added | enderland | I've tried following all the discussions over the past 6+ months about site scope and don't remember history ever coming up as being on-topic. Can you link me to that meta discussion? I seem to remember almost all the discussion focusing around the point that questions need to be related to the SLDC. | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 2:53 | history | answered | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |