Timeline for Revisiting 'Official' Accounts
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 3, 2017 at 11:31 | vote | accept | Journeyman GeekMod | ||
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.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 10, 2012 at 14:09 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSuper_User/status/233928172691931136 | ||
| Aug 9, 2012 at 15:43 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | @IvoFlipse As Creative Commons mostly assigns rights to content recipients, how is it not (possibly) against the interests of the content-providing companies? Saying "Yeah, we don't claim ownership to everything you post, only a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide license to do whatever we want with your content, even if you delete it afterwards" isn't exactly a great argument. | |
| Aug 9, 2012 at 7:30 | answer | added | demize | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 15:41 | history | edited | James Mertz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
restructured the sentence to read a little better.
|
| Jul 27, 2012 at 9:41 | comment | added | Ivo Flipse Mod | Perhaps someone should explain them about Creative Commons then, since they would be able to reuse the material even if we went rogue. I just wish that they would show us the same love as their own forums, which won't happen without some form of mediation between SU and the companies | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 9:39 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | Related. | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 9:37 | answer | added | slhckMod | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 9:29 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | I don't think they'd be willing to contribute their KB articles to SU (losing control, losing centralized management, etc.), so I don't see how having an official [Manufacturer] account will help, except for linking support articles. And we don't particularly like link-only answers for the same reasons they'd probably love them. | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 9:27 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | The problem is that their contributions don't seem to have any value. "Contact us" isn't exactly a good answer for SU. Sounds a lot like what a "social media expert" would recommend for companies regarding Twitter. | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 9:26 | comment | added | Ivo Flipse Mod | Obviously the first step would be that they post awesome answers, which in most cases they don't. If only we had a way to explain that answering questions on SU is a very good thing for their customers | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 9:26 | comment | added | slhck Mod | > is attempting to help solve the situation — I disagree with that. The answer doesn't help at all, at least not at the moment. Pointing to the generic support site and sending the device into repair is an answer you could give to almost any question. | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 9:24 | history | asked | Journeyman GeekMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |