Timeline for This question was closed-as-dup but the accepted answer is out-of-date
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 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/
|
|
| Dec 11, 2015 at 22:11 | comment | added | Frank Thomas | I must say, I can't support the idea of appending a new answer to a question that is not specific to it, both in topic and point-in-time. When I search for answers and hit SE sites results, I quickly disregard questions that do not appear to describe a situation related to the problem I am trying to solve, and for version specific stuff, I exclude results from years prior to the version in question. Combined with not being able to trust the accepted answer, and the fact that newer answers will have fewer votes, such an approach just seems to bury pertinent info, bounty or no. | |
| Dec 4, 2015 at 12:34 | answer | added | Dmitry Grigoryev | timeline score: 12 | |
| Dec 4, 2015 at 5:24 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/super_user/status/672647662676672512 | ||
| Dec 4, 2015 at 4:33 | comment | added | bjb568 | @fixer That's simply abuse of the dup system. While "the majority of site users" may not be able to create bounties, in cases where it's warranted there's almost always users with at least 75 rep (less than the association bonus!) that can add the bounty. Even without that, you can easily find somebody with rep via chat. So a new question that's predestined to be closed is neither beneficial nor right nor necessary. There's a system specifically to made for this purpose, so we should use it. | |
| Dec 4, 2015 at 3:13 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @bjb568: The issue being discussed is attracting new answers to old questions. Two methods are being discussed: posting a new question or posting a bounty on the old one. Nobody is arguing about the benefits of someone choosing to post a bounty. The issue is whether a new questiion should be allowed in order to attract answers without the need for a bounty. For the majority of site users, who don't have the rep to post a bounty, I'm suggesting that posting a new question is an acceptable alternative, and it can be made a dupe, if appropriate, after it has served its purpose. | |
| Dec 4, 2015 at 1:41 | comment | added | bjb568 | @fixer Bounties are not required for answers, you can go try to answer the question now, it'll work, you'll see. | |
| Dec 4, 2015 at 1:36 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @bjb568: 1) If people are not allowed to post a new question, they can only post a bounty on an existing question, then it is a requirement. 2) Yes, bounties are the opposite of hurdles. However, the requirement for a bounty or no new answers is a hurdle to new answers. | |
| Dec 3, 2015 at 23:14 | comment | added | bjb568 | @fixer They're not a requirement just like having good answers aren't a requirement. Bounties are the opposite of hurdles to answers. | |
| Dec 3, 2015 at 23:01 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @bjb568: That's a tortured interpretation of both the intent of bounties and my comments. True, that's what bounties are for, but they are not a requirement and were never intended as a hurdle to answers. | |
| Dec 3, 2015 at 22:25 | comment | added | bjb568 | @fixer This is what bounties are for. If you don't want to bounty the outdated question or answer it yourself, that's just too bad. You aren't entitled to quality up-to-date answers if you can't even be bothered to spend a bit of rep for the site. | |
| Dec 3, 2015 at 19:20 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @Braiam: You're correct. No answers equals no work for moderators or reviewers, which is the goal of the site. :-) | |
| Dec 3, 2015 at 18:46 | comment | added | Braiam | @fixer1234 without having to waste moderators and closevoters time? I doubt it. Bounties do the work, and do it well. | |
| Dec 3, 2015 at 18:43 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @Braiam: Bounties are great and can attract current answers. That isn't the point. Bounties are available to people with sufficient rep who want to use them. But attracting answers is not limited to a requirement that a bounty is the only tool that can be used. We can attract answers without a bounty and still consolidate the information. | |
| Dec 3, 2015 at 18:36 | comment | added | Braiam | @fixer1234 you are missing the whole point of bounties. How can bounties not attract "good and current answers"? | |
| Dec 3, 2015 at 18:30 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @Braiam: You missed two key points in my comment. 1) All of the info in one place is important, but less important than attracting good and current answers, which is the purpose of the site. Housekeeping is secondary. 2) Timing is a free tool. Duplicates can be linked or merged later. After current answers are attracted, we can put all of the info in one place. Requiring a bounty is an obstacle to getting answers and is not the intention of bounties. | |
| Dec 3, 2015 at 18:19 | comment | added | Braiam | @fixer1234 that is against of the spirit of "all the information, one place". The bounties were designed precisely to counter obsolescence. Also read meta.stackexchange.com/a/11706/213575 | |
| Dec 3, 2015 at 18:06 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @Braiam: True, but why should people put up a bounty when answers can be attracted for free? Bounties are a tool that can be voluntarily used if someone thinks it worth it, it shouldn't be a requirement. | |
| Dec 3, 2015 at 18:02 | answer | added | Braiam | timeline score: -1 | |
| Dec 3, 2015 at 18:00 | comment | added | Braiam | @fixer1234 there's a bounty reason for that: " Current answers are outdated, The current answer(s) are out-of-date and require revision given recent changes." | |
| Dec 1, 2015 at 19:44 | comment | added | fixer1234 | An answer going out of date is a problem for both questions. It's compounded by both questions being old, so there is not likely to be a new answer unless somebody stumbles across one or the other and submits a new answer. Consolidating information is important, but it should take a back seat to attracting current answers. My suggestion would be to write a new question (with links to the old ones), and distinguish, it as you suggest, by making it specific to FF>30. After it gets current answers, we can make it a dupe of one of the old ones. | |
| Dec 1, 2015 at 16:39 | comment | added | Ramhound | So the existing question has an accepted answer. That should not stop anyone from submitting a new answer, which specifically indicates this feature was added after Firefox 30, provided the answer itself actually merits being submitted. Both questions are asking for ways to determine what is consuming both memory and CPU resources within a tab. I don't personally see the problem. | |
| Dec 1, 2015 at 14:57 | history | asked | joeytwiddle | CC BY-SA 3.0 |