Timeline for Why was this question about securely wiping SSDs closed as "too broad"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 14, 2019 at 20:23 | comment | added | Ramhound | @Hashim - A question being closed is not a punishment. | |
| Jan 8, 2019 at 1:03 | comment | added | fixer1234 | If the patent you're asking about has already been implemented and people are familiar with it, the question would be more on-topic and get a better response than if it is still just a theoretical approach. | |
| Jan 8, 2019 at 1:03 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @Hashim, the problem isn't the context or your research, it's what you're asking people to do in answer to your question. Asking people to distill a document isn't an on-topic request, even if the content relates to computers. Asking people to explain how a computer-related thing works is closer, but still computer theory rather than a specific computer-related problem. However, that kind of question often gets a pass from the community. (cont'd) | |
| Jan 8, 2019 at 0:34 | comment | added | Hashim Aziz | @fixer1234 So in answer to my question, removing all of my research prior to "How exactly does Blancco's patented technology for securely wiping SSDs work?" would indeed make the question more on-topic... and you don't think that's backward? I'm being punished for actually doing my own research, and it's a ridiculous approach to moderation. Also, as has been evidenced, it wasn't close enough - that's why we're here. | |
| Jan 8, 2019 at 0:30 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @Hashim, the question was closed before I saw it, but my reaction to it was the same as random describes. At least as written, the question is not how to solve a computer hardware or software problem. It asks people to distill a document for you, which is not really on-topic. If you tweaked the wording to just ask for an explanation, and assuming the content is well known, that would be more of a computer science question. But it might be "close enough" that the community might make an exception (which is the value of the "inconsistency" you complained about in your other post). :-) | |
| Jan 7, 2019 at 23:02 | comment | added | Hashim Aziz | You're providing a non-sequitur of a defence - a defence for a different and brand-new close reason no less - that doesn't stand up to any sort of rationality, but it will be voted up regardless because this community is intent on closing even good questions provided it's able to pluck inane close reasons out of thin air, even while disregarding any sort of base consistency between those reasons. | |
| Jan 7, 2019 at 23:02 | comment | added | Hashim Aziz | Nonsense. What reading level does the community usually decide to write answers to, or does common sense generally dictate that well enough? Most of the specialised questions on this site require summaries of crucial sources. You're telling me the extra, voluntary step of including the link in the answer suddenly makes them off topic? | |
| Jan 7, 2019 at 14:57 | history | answered | randomMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |