Timeline for Is it considered bad form to make question titles more accurate?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Feb 26, 2017 at 7:28 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @BenVoigt, I completely agree if the edit accomplishes that. Not all edits do. | |
| Feb 26, 2017 at 6:46 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @fixer1234: Title edits on old questions are incredibly helpful because they make search results useful. Titles are not about all questions being useful a question, they're about making it easy to distinguish ones that might be useful from that one that isn't useful (because it's about an old version, etc). | |
| Feb 15, 2017 at 13:05 | comment | added | Braiam | @fixer1234 SE has made known that anything that improves the post should be accepted, irrespectively if it's too minor, old, closed (specially if your edit fix the question), etc. Edits that makes the post more useful, searchable, descriptive should be accepted! Don't use age to discourage edits that improves posts! | |
| Feb 14, 2017 at 16:32 | comment | added | fixer1234 | Are you saying that bumping an ancient question to improve its title is always warranted, even on questions that are no longer relevant (or even ones that were never useful)? Even when there are other obvious problems the edit didn't fix? Or is your point that in this case, considered on this question's own merits, you would have approved the edit because you think that question is still useful? | |
| Feb 14, 2017 at 12:07 | history | answered | Braiam | CC BY-SA 3.0 |