Timeline for Even given that some information is unwanted, is it appropriate to use spam mechanisms when a post needs to be more focused?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:18 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Sep 5, 2015 at 9:34 | comment | added | Christos Hayward | I particularly appreciate the reminder that long questions don't get read. The kind of answer I prefer is like @allquixotic's long post with context, not (just) the TL;DR. I'm grateful for that poster's detail in addressing my question. | |
| Sep 5, 2015 at 9:29 | comment | added | Christos Hayward | Ramhound, thanks; fixer1234, noted. | |
| Sep 5, 2015 at 9:27 | vote | accept | Christos Hayward | ||
| Sep 5, 2015 at 3:49 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @JonathanHayward: This site gets lots of spam. Users who participate in the community moderation activities do a good job of deleting it quickly, so casual users may not even be aware of it. The first huge chunk of content in your original version was a model of the ads that get deleted by the basket-load. I'm surprised it didn't attract more flags. Flagging aside, long questions don't get read, especially if you don't get right to the point. If you want answers, make the question concise and start it with the actual question. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 23:05 | comment | added | Ramhound | It worth pointing out. Given I have read the orginal revision 3 times, it still reads, like an advertisement. I was simply hasty in thinking it couldn't be salvaged through an edit. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 22:55 | comment | added | Ramhound | @JonathanHayward - I flagged your question as spam in haste, given I can't reverse that flag, I simply indicated I couldn't do that. Honestly given the original revision I still I wasn't all that hasty. As with somebody with over 200 reputation points, I do expect higher quality, then a question that I still cannot determine what your actually question is. So if I offended you I do apologize. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 22:45 | comment | added | bwDraco | The problem is that the post, while not spam in its original form, had large amounts of information that weren't particularly relevant and could have been read (incorrectly) as spam. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 22:37 | history | edited | Giacomo1968 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 319 characters in body
|
| Sep 4, 2015 at 22:35 | answer | added | Giacomo1968 | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 22:30 | history | edited | Giacomo1968 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 215 characters in body
|
| Sep 4, 2015 at 22:21 | history | asked | Christos Hayward | CC BY-SA 3.0 |