Timeline for 'closed as exact duplicate' should show the EXACT duplicate
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 7, 2012 at 9:50 | comment | added | serialhobbyist | I agree with @boot13 that it feels like a punishment. It's embarrassing to have someone stamp "This user is incompetent" all over one of their posts. It's also irritating when it isn't true. | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 21:23 | comment | added | boot13 | @TomWij: Oh, then I guess I somehow missed the last line of your original answer in my original reading. In any case, thanks! | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 1:23 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | @boot13: I've edited nothing here, see the timeline. | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 1:22 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | @boot13: superuser.com/questions/how-to-ask | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 1:20 | comment | added | boot13 | @TomWij: I just noticed that you updated your original response to agree with my point about wording. Thanks for that! | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 1:18 | comment | added | boot13 | @TomWij: Regarding Meta StackOverflow: agreed. However, saying that closing a duplicate question is not punishment because the owner should have known better makes no sense that I can see. Perhaps you meant something else? As for the link being in an obvious position, I assume you're referring to the 'possible duplicates' at the top? If so, then yes, that message is visible, but that still doesn't address my concerns. If there is an exact duplicate, it should be described that way, particularly if more than one link is listed, which often occurs in the message at the top. | |
| Feb 6, 2011 at 22:42 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | @boot13: You might want to propose this at Meta StackOverflow instead, because this meta is specific to this site and that meta is more general towards all sites. The owner isn't punished as he is supposed to check those duplicate questions before asking his question. The link is in an obvious and clear position viewable on any normal screen resolution, it's highly unlikely that the user would have skipped that link... | |
| Feb 6, 2011 at 21:39 | comment | added | boot13 | @TomWij: thanks for that, but it doesn't really help. If there's an exact duplicate, why not link to it? If there are only possible duplicates, why say there's an exact duplicate? If you only want to tell the question owner that there are possible duplicates, why be so definitive as to CLOSE the question, appearing to punish the owner for posting an EXACT duplicate? Keep in mind that I'm not asking for much here, just some slight wording changes and the addition of a link that really should be there anyway. | |
| Feb 6, 2011 at 21:29 | history | answered | Tamara Wijsman | CC BY-SA 2.5 |