Timeline for Why does the audit system think this is a great answer?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5, 2016 at 22:15 | comment | added | Ramhound | @OlegBolden I declined the edit to your answer for precisely that reason, also left a comment, so you were aware of this question. I think it's rediculois somebody would down vote your answer. Don't apologize for bad granmar, either take the time to fix it, or don't but apologizing is a cop-out in my opinion. I suggest rolling the revision back on your answer, personally, I thought it was fine. | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 20:05 | comment | added | Oleg Bolden | All who need complete explanation can read Toby's post. Finally, Toby got green mark and the first thankful comment under my post from the topic starter Hugh turned to be gone somehow. Now everyone who reads this question thinks it is Toby who answered it first, so I wonder why Toby is not satisfied with such a status quo. I'd better answer new 10 questions to help more people rather then perform infinite editions to this boring theme. Sorry for my bad English. | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 20:05 | comment | added | Oleg Bolden | Initially I thought there were no need in special explanation of my answer (the first sentence) because all who interested in it can simply read help file for tail to see the meaning of -F option. But critics insisted in additional explanation so I posted a bit generalized addition in order not to be back to this theme anymore. Of course, if I write wiki I'd be more precise. | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 17:35 | vote | accept | Toby Speight | ||
| Apr 5, 2016 at 17:30 | answer | added | Ben N | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 17:12 | history | edited | Ben N | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
link to answer, not just the question
|
| Apr 5, 2016 at 15:18 | history | edited | Toby Speight | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Although it was posted before my answer, it was only a subsequent edit that added any explanation
|
| Apr 5, 2016 at 15:13 | answer | added | Ramhound | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 15:10 | comment | added | Toby Speight | I knew at least one existing better answer: I wrote it. | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 15:09 | history | edited | Toby Speight | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
It's the "First Posts" queue that I was reviewing
|
| Apr 5, 2016 at 15:07 | comment | added | Toby Speight | So I shouldn't be downvoting valid answers just because they're not very good? I thought that was the point of a down vote (as opposed to a vote to close)? | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 15:06 | comment | added | Toby Speight | And it didn't exist (in that form) when I posted my answer, otherwise I'd have edited it rather than post something similar. So in audit, it looked like a newer answer adding nothing of value. :-( | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 15:05 | comment | added | Ramhound | The audit system isn't attempting to determine if there is a technical problem with the answer, its trying to determine if the statement is an answer or not, and from that perspective it is a valid answer. Besides the answer isn't even the user's first post. | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 15:04 | comment | added | Toby Speight |
There is something wrong with it: -F implies -f=name, not -f.
|
|
| Apr 5, 2016 at 15:02 | comment | added | Ramhound | There is nothing wrong with that answer. When it was submitted there was no other answers. So your argument it does not add anything, that the existing answers don't already state, is irrelevant, because it actually did. | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 14:58 | history | asked | Toby Speight | CC BY-SA 3.0 |