Timeline for Update the FAQ to specifically allow home networking questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2011 at 15:31 | comment | added | music2myear | Where it's obvious the user is attempting to circumvent their local IT staff, we should encourage them to take up the issue with the correct responsible party. But otherwise they ought to be left here. | |
| Oct 21, 2011 at 15:30 | comment | added | music2myear | I'd take issue with the professional/corporate level IT line being included. I've asked several questions here that pertain to my position in IT. With an upcoming job change most of my questions will probably move to SO and SF, but right now most of my issues are with desktops, which are generally better asked here than elsewhere. I'm experienced and competent at computer support, but I don't know everything, which is why I ask questions here. Excluding questions simply because they could be relevant to a corporate/professional IT issue seems to toss the baby out with the bathwater. | |
| Oct 20, 2011 at 13:33 | comment | added | Pops | @DanielBeck has nicely illustrated why the FAQ's on-topic/off-topic summary is not a good place to write an essay. No matter what games you play with wording, there'll always be some edge case out there that generates complaints and requires mod intervention. Since we have to rely on human judgment -- both users' and mods' -- anyway, we might as well keep the FAQ short and sweet. | |
| Oct 19, 2011 at 22:40 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | Who decides what's unique to the corporate level? You'd probably be surprised about the insanity of what some users build at home. Another issue is that quite a few questions that usually only arise in corporate or university networks (mostly troubleshooting) are perfectly on-topic here. // Given that we migrated only 72 questions to SF in the last 90 days, it's a non-issue (stats for 10k+ users). We should prefer to having two sites for some questions (SF and SU) instead of none. | |
| Oct 19, 2011 at 19:27 | history | edited | Pops | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
grammar fix/wording tweak
|
| Oct 11, 2011 at 8:15 | comment | added | slhck | Maybe it would be better to skip this for now and discuss it separetly? @nhinkle | |
| Oct 11, 2011 at 6:21 | comment | added | nhinkle Mod | @DanielBeck I agree that could dissuade some people. Perhaps it would be better written as "professional support of servers or managing corporate networks", as those are things that don't apply to SU and belong on SF. What do you think of that wording? | |
| Oct 11, 2011 at 5:58 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | Where does that second line come from? This might prevent users from asking questions that arise at work, but aren't necessarily exclusive to corporate settings (see @nhinkle's comment to the question). | |
| Oct 11, 2011 at 2:54 | history | edited | Pops | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added alternate longer, clearer wording
|
| Oct 10, 2011 at 22:42 | comment | added | Simon Sheehan | @nhinkle not to mention his 300+ edits without having the privilege yet! | |
| Oct 10, 2011 at 21:23 | comment | added | nhinkle Mod | Much better wording than my version; thanks. I guess there's a reason you won the editing award in the anniversary contest, eh? | |
| Oct 10, 2011 at 20:07 | comment | added | slhck | Yes, that is great. Having a double negative is kinda confusing. | |
| Oct 10, 2011 at 19:36 | comment | added | BinaryMisfit Mod | This answer has my genuwine stamp of approval. | |
| Oct 10, 2011 at 19:19 | history | answered | Pops | CC BY-SA 3.0 |