Timeline for Are high-reputation users answering fewer questions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Aug 20, 2014 at 9:39 | comment | added | Frédéric Hamidi | @Stijn, true, done. The question was already bumped anyway, so it's not like we're adding much more noise. | |
| Aug 20, 2014 at 9:38 | history | rollback | Frédéric Hamidi |
Rollback to Revision 2
|
|
| Aug 20, 2014 at 9:37 | comment | added | user247702 | @FrédéricHamidi I even think this edit should be reverted. The answer was posted from the view of a user with X reputation, it makes no sense to change that value. | |
| Aug 20, 2014 at 9:31 | comment | added | Rahil Wazir | @FrédéricHamidi Probably not | |
| Aug 20, 2014 at 9:26 | comment | added | Frédéric Hamidi | @Rahil, will you keep editing this post as gdoron's reputation increases? Because I'm not sure bumping this question for the sake of such minimal edits is a good thing. | |
| Aug 20, 2014 at 9:19 | history | edited | Rahil Wazir | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| May 5, 2014 at 20:06 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | Here is the Meta SE Deleted link for the "What Stack Overflow is Not" Question: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/128548/…. | |
| May 2, 2014 at 21:29 | history | edited | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Copy edited. Expansion.
|
| May 2, 2014 at 12:29 | comment | added | Matthieu M. | @BrianRoach: Please, let it go. We have read your question, we have read the answers, we formed an opinion on the matter, no need to keep pestering us with it. And for the record, I disagree; there can be good "How do I do X" questions, so let's not kill them all because of stereotypes. | |
| May 1, 2014 at 9:56 | comment | added | gdoron | @mehow, top 0.27% :) | |
| May 1, 2014 at 7:04 | comment | added | Brian Roach | I'm sitting here shocked at the moment. See: meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/253069/… ... Apparently, yes. They want crap, and from now on, we shouldn't close crap, or be concerned about crap. I guess this is no longer the site I should be contributing to, which makes me sad. | |
| May 1, 2014 at 5:02 | comment | added | Brian Roach | I actually agree with you, and have said so before. If the actual goal of SO is what is stated, then the "what stackoverflow is not" thread would never have gone away. The answers were concise, not rude, explained exactly what the problem was for a specific Q type, and offered a way to quickly comment on a Q (while submitting a close vote) with a link to let the user know what was wrong with their question. This is why I worry all of these meta discussions are going to fall on deaf ears. | |
| Apr 30, 2014 at 10:33 | comment | added | Denys Séguret | +1 I'm not sure "SE management feels comfortable with this situation" but I sure would like SE understanding that the ones who didn't leave yet find it harder and harder not to. We need, at the very least, more tools like the what stackoverflow is not thread. | |
| Apr 30, 2014 at 10:30 | comment | added | user2140173 | only 56K? hah what's that like top 5% or 10%? I don't agree with the money part but +1 for mentioning the use of "public defensive strategy" used by SE | |
| Apr 30, 2014 at 10:02 | history | answered | gdoron | CC BY-SA 3.0 |