Timeline for How can we take care of our old duplicates?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Nov 12, 2011 at 12:23 | history | edited | Daniel BeckMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added example for answer deprecation
|
| Oct 4, 2011 at 10:50 | comment | added | Joe Taylor | +1 for the deprecated answer feature. its so simple but a great idea | |
| Oct 3, 2011 at 23:46 | comment | added | nhinkle Mod | I think the suggestion for a "deprecated" or "superseded" close reason is a very good idea actually, and might be well received. Suggest it in a separate post here or Meta Stack Exchange. | |
| Oct 3, 2011 at 21:31 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | The invitation of creating duplicates is something we don't really want, I've only read in a slant way but you can only do this if the new question has already generated more useful content or the old question is simply not relevant anymore. As for the feature request I'm pretty sure it won't happen given that we can't vote to accept stuff either, and who is wanting to go through all the old content like that? As you describe it it doesn't really fit in the system, so I doubt if anyone else besides those that read about it will use it... | |
| Oct 3, 2011 at 17:39 | comment | added | slhck | Well, I always try to fix what I can, whenever I VTC a duplicate, but the impact of bumping it is marginal I'm afraid. | |
| Oct 3, 2011 at 17:25 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | @slhck In some ways, it needs the deprecation feature to make reverse duplicates work. Or at least, they'd work better. It could work similar to off topic destinations: a voter decides which question to keep, and the majority wins. Of course, this requires specific support for this feature on the site, and will generate negative responses ("But MY QUESTION is the original!!"). Another, "cheaper" option would be to bump the old question once there's a newly closed duplicate of it, just to get some interest. But "manual" reverse duplicates is the only thing I can think of without new features. | |
| Oct 3, 2011 at 17:04 | comment | added | slhck | Also, as you said, there's not always a need for those. Who gets to judge if an old duplicate is outdated? In the end, maybe it's about educating people not to post at the newly asked question but focus their energy on cleaning up the duplicate itself. Then again, you can't get them to do that either. Either way, it's a very hard problem to solve, I guess. | |
| Oct 3, 2011 at 17:03 | comment | added | slhck | I kinda like the idea of "reverse" duplicates. This would however require a bit of moderation overhead, as not all look for the old duplicate and close it, unless you specifically tell them to (or 10k users / moderators do it). | |
| Oct 3, 2011 at 13:17 | history | edited | Daniel BeckMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo
|
| Oct 3, 2011 at 13:09 | history | answered | Daniel BeckMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |