Timeline for which question is the duplicate?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:16 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:37 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 9, 2016 at 5:03 | comment | added | Scott - Слава Україні | @fixer1234: Yes, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others …" (Animal Farm by George Orwell), and while duplicates are "the same question", some duplicates are better than others. | |
| Aug 9, 2016 at 4:54 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @Scott, good point. Usually, those chains are only a few levels deep. Also, multiple questions are rarely identical, so some dupes will be closer to the question than others. I usually try to link to the question that's closest (with good answers), and have that link to a less-related question (with good answers), and don't worry too much about linking to every possible answer in the system. The dupe link at the start of the question is much more noticeable than the links on the right, which tend to be surrounded by noise (they're there and ignored at the time the OP writes the question). | |
| Aug 9, 2016 at 3:01 | comment | added | Scott - Слава Україні | @fixer1234: Are you suggesting that, if four question posts are essentially equivalent, then the 4th best one (i.e., the worst one) should be closed as a duplicate of the 3rd best one, which should be a dupe of the 2nd best, which should be a dupe of the best? I disagree. I believe we should always refer to be best available reference. The others can be found in the "Linked" section in the right column. | |
| Aug 7, 2016 at 20:09 | comment | added | fixer1234 | I'm not sure how to definitively check for past inclusion in the HNQ. If no smoking gun, I look for the smoke, indications that a question was advertised in one form or another. Questions that got some advertising usually have views and votes way out of proportion to what you would expect from the content, especially if you have several similar questions/answers to compare and look at relative votes vs. content. Not foolproof, but your radar will lead to a closer look. If you don't have the expertise to evaluate the merits, you can always leave the heavy lifting on that question to others. | |
| Aug 7, 2016 at 20:02 | comment | added | DavidPostill Mod | @TrevorBoydSmith To check for tweets look at the question timeline. The easiest way to do that is with a greasemonkey script Add Timeline and Revisions links. I don't know of any way to know whether a question has previously on HNQ. | |
| Aug 7, 2016 at 19:28 | comment | added | Trevor Boyd Smith | @fixer1234 very good advice. i did not think of this aspect. your advice is very subtle/advanced "if you're not a subject matter expert" and then "relying on votes without checking for things like tweet or Hot Network Question". I think this is sage because "just because everyone says one thing is not always the correct/best advice". In the future, I shall have to make sure to check for tweet/hot-network-question. link to "how to check for tweet/hot-network-question" ? | |
| Aug 7, 2016 at 19:21 | comment | added | fixer1234 | 2) If you find multiple decent candidates for the dupe reference, look at whether one of those is already a dupe of the other. If not, start there with the dupe decision and identify all of the candidates for linking. Then consider the "chain" of duplicates. You want to lead the reader to as many answers as possible. If everything points to a single node, nobody will be aware of answers on the other questions. It's more useful to create a chain, where each question links to another with more answers. | |
| Aug 7, 2016 at 19:21 | comment | added | fixer1234 | Two thoughts: 1) What you've posted is correct, but consider the basis when making a decision. Ideally, selecting the duplicate would be done by people with some expertise in whatever the subject is. If you're not a subject matter expert, be careful of relying on votes without checking for things like whether one question got some advertising (tweet or Hot Network Question), and what is said in the comments. (cont'd) | |
| Aug 7, 2016 at 18:34 | history | answered | Trevor Boyd Smith | CC BY-SA 3.0 |