Timeline for Why strangulate the DOS-discussion in the comments?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:11 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Aug 12, 2011 at 0:18 | comment | added | barlop | out of interest, is there a way to initiate a chat attached to a question? I just tried creating a room left it and it still appears under active rooms | |
| Aug 11, 2011 at 21:36 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | @barlop: Feel free to suggest it. Also, think about how comments affect a question in general, most of the times just noise; if we ever get out of this into an agreement you would agree that a summary of this comment thread in the answer is much better than a lot of noise in between two answers... :) | |
| Aug 11, 2011 at 21:06 | comment | added | barlop | it could be said concisely,that the chat is attached to the question and available for reference.Some may be put off even attempting the chat because they wouldn't have thought it's attached to the question and available for reference so they may think it'll just be hard to find in future,and thus favor comments, so they may not try it and they won't find out it's attached to the question.It is a cost to spend time chatting about something one thinks is important and then find it is not easy to find.If people think that's the case and many would presume that is the case, then they won't try it | |
| Aug 11, 2011 at 21:00 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | @barlop: The link is there to make you try it, it has immediate effect. There is nothing to lose and you can remove the result comment if you actually don't want to discuss anymore. If we had to explain everything in these tiny spots, there would be barely Q&A left. | |
| Aug 11, 2011 at 20:54 | comment | added | barlop | if the msg asking about going to chat, doesn't make that clear, then some might be so put off doing so. | |
| Aug 11, 2011 at 20:53 | comment | added | barlop | perhaps it should say that the chat is attached to the question. I've noticed a message asking about taking it to chat, but that could mean going into a chat room normally. Maybe it gives a link, but who the hell knows that could be a link to a general chat room, or some private one or something, who knows where links go especially if it's not an easily readable http link you can see in the status bar. I hadn't even realised it was a special chat that was linked to the question in some way for future reference and those interested. | |
| Aug 11, 2011 at 20:30 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman |
@barlop: Note the word threads. Useful information is simply hidden in long comment threads that users don't want to read because they are... Well, long. Useful information should instead be added to the question and/or answer itself. Chat rooms can be used in a not online matter, just like you would comment but then at the right place. A summary of what you came to in the chat room could then be added to the answer, with a link to the chat for people that do actually care about the boring discussion. Note that a link is automatically placed at the bottom of the comment thread...
|
|
| Aug 11, 2011 at 20:20 | comment | added | barlop | "shouldn't be useful information hidden in comment threads, it should be visible in the Q&A." that is not very feasible people do have useful things to say. If there was a chat room -for that question- then that may be helpful, if both people are online at the same me. It at least means the chat won't be hard or impossible to find in future. | |
| Aug 7, 2011 at 11:30 | history | edited | Tamara Wijsman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 44 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2011 at 11:14 | history | answered | Tamara Wijsman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |