Timeline for Should we add information from comments to questions if it invalidates existing answers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 14, 2013 at 10:06 | history | edited | Oliver SalzburgMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 298 characters in body
|
| Mar 14, 2013 at 9:59 | history | edited | Oliver SalzburgMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 298 characters in body
|
| Mar 14, 2013 at 7:58 | comment | added | Bob | On the other hand, it's not uncommon for the general concept or method expressed in an answer to be applicable for multiple operating systems, though the specific commands may be OS-specific. I don't really consider such answers incorrect. | |
| Mar 14, 2013 at 0:17 | comment | added | Oliver Salzburg Mod | @MarcksThomas: If the answer is valuable, the author of said answer could post an additional question and copy the answer over. Self-answers are encouraged and welcome. | |
| Mar 14, 2013 at 0:12 | comment | added | Karan | @MarcksThomas: " After all, if the question had not been edited, then the answer would not have been wrong or irrelevant." True. Of course the OP did come along and express a preference for a Windows solution, although that in itself didn't invalidate the Linux solution IMO. In the interest of providing good info. relevant to multiple OSes, how about now re-adding the deleted answer as Community Wiki, so that solutions for other OSes can be added to it later by others? (This would require removing the Windows tag and restoring the question to its original form.) | |
| Mar 14, 2013 at 0:08 | comment | added | Pylsa | @MarcksThomas I agree that helpful answers are awesome. However, I could be posting how to achieve cold nuclear fusion. It't be awesome and helpful, but completely irrelevant. The big problem I see here is: Where do we draw the line on what is acceptable when it comes to deviating from the OP's question/requirements? Are we to disregard it? | |
| Mar 14, 2013 at 0:04 | comment | added | Marcks Thomas | I agree the answerer may have gambled whether his submission would be useful to the OP, but the reasoning also seems somewhat circular: the answerer takes a risk because the question may be specified, and because the answerer knowingly takes this risk, it's okay edit the question. After all, if the question had not been edited, then the answer would not have been wrong or irrelevant. Instead, it could have been helpful to future visitors. Shouldn't we be awarding useful answers, even though they did not help one person in particular? | |
| Mar 14, 2013 at 0:04 | comment | added | Karan | @BloodPhilia: Yes, I do agree that asking for clarification is the recommended response in such a situation, so as to salvage/improve the question. Personally I would have waited for the OP to respond to Dave Rook before attempting to answer. Just that in this case we were looking for ways to make the best of the existing situation. | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 23:57 | comment | added | Pylsa | @Karan that would also mean that people who answer the question bear the same responsibility to make sure it is clear what the OP wants before endeavouring to answer the (overly broad) question. Clearly, the OP is an inexperienced user. In my opinion, experienced users should then act as a safety net and guide new users to forming a proper question, not just answering it as quickly as possible to take the reputation. | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 23:47 | comment | added | Karan | ... Another very real problem I've seen with such questions in the past is that people will tend to post good answers that solve the problem on the OS of their choice. Rarely will you get one encompassing answer with great solutions for every (common) OS out there. This in turn makes it difficult if not impossible for the OP to accept any one answer. I know it's not necessary to accept, but I think ideally people should post separate questions targeting each OS they are interested in. | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 23:46 | comment | added | Karan | "If the OP does not specify an OS, then the answers should be valid for as many operating systems as possible." - Except doesn't that (not specifying an OS) carry the risk of the question becoming overly broad and thus being marked as NARQ? ... | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 23:16 | history | answered | Oliver SalzburgMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |