Timeline for Why are questions off-topic for Super User being migrated from other trilogy sites?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 29, 2021 at 19:34 | history | edited | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
broken image fixed (click 'side-by-side' to see the difference; image retrieved via Wayback Machine); for more info, see https://gist.github.com/Glorfindel83/9d954d34385d2ac2597bbe864466259f
|
| Feb 14, 2011 at 2:10 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | So, just like ChrisF (and many others?), I failed to notice that... :-( | |
| Feb 14, 2011 at 1:11 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @tom the links in the picture link to the respective /faq on each site-- try clicking them | |
| Feb 13, 2011 at 21:56 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | Or, a more simple although repetitive implementation is to just add ", within the scope defined in their faq" after the belongs to X text. As you see, the off-topic option lists action and reason, but the migration only lists action and the reason behind the action is missing. Not providing a reason and link to the individual FAQs makes it too easy for subsequently users to go along with that... | |
| Feb 13, 2011 at 21:47 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | Still, the description could be clarified and could benefit from having the exact same audience text as in the FAQ, and also what the site is not for. Let me take ServerFault as an example: Your screenshot says "for sys admins and IT pros" while the SF FAQ says "for sys admins and desktop support pros" and they don't allow "Networking outside the professional workplace" and "Running servers at home for personal use". From the screenshot I can't tell either if SU allows Gaming, and 3k rep users won't know our sites well enough to be aware of that... | |
| Nov 23, 2010 at 7:37 | history | answered | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 2.5 |