Timeline for Moderation of duplicates here vs SO
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 20, 2011 at 16:48 | comment | added | P.Brian.Mackey | +1 @Ivo - I think I see what you mean now. So you suggest I edit the original question to add this detail. That does make sense. I will keep this in mind in the future. It does kind-a go against the voting system, but it does make sense for "gardening". So long as the site doesn't make itself obsolete. See my similar concern for SO meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88161/is-so-consuming-itself/… | |
| May 20, 2011 at 16:44 | vote | accept | P.Brian.Mackey | ||
| May 20, 2011 at 15:48 | comment | added | Ivo Flipse Mod | Why leave them open, like @random said: you can add them to the old one. | |
| May 20, 2011 at 15:06 | comment | added | P.Brian.Mackey | Perhaps what is needed then is to allow duplicates to remain open for a time and then merge the new answers. This way we can still gather new information and keep an "original". I am guessing Google doesn't allow duplicates to come up as results otherwise the cleanup process would be somewhat artificial. | |
| May 20, 2011 at 14:54 | comment | added | random Mod | One point. But the closing paragraph addresses why we feel that duplicates that are the same shouldn't spread information all over the place. Add to the older question, it's still there. @pbr | |
| May 20, 2011 at 14:48 | comment | added | P.Brian.Mackey | So you are saying the only reason SO doesn't close duplicates is because they cannot keep up? This is in direct contradiction to the itemized list in my question. I did not make this list up. I pulled these details from past meta-discussions on SO meta. | |
| May 20, 2011 at 14:47 | history | answered | randomMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |