Timeline for Bounty placed for something that wasn't the original question, and was explicitly handled in the original question
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:18 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Apr 19, 2013 at 13:35 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSuper_User/status/325241132047032320 | ||
| Apr 5, 2013 at 14:00 | answer | added | Journeyman GeekMod | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 13:58 | comment | added | harrymc | @JourneymanGeek: What you suggest conforms also to forum rules. It's your post originally, but now also that of Gam Erix, so I think that you should also ask for his agreement. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 13:55 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | @harrymc: If a low rep user had done that, it would have been rejected as an invalid edit, and we'd have to substancially edit the question. I'd also be inclined to edit the existing selected answer so as not to have two partial answers, and out of a sense of fairness to the person who originally answered the question - its not fair that we move the goalposts on him. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 13:53 | history | edited | Journeyman GeekMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 19 characters in body
|
| Apr 5, 2013 at 13:52 | comment | added | Oliver Salzburg Mod | Okay, so, how about editing the question to cover the whole range of shortcuts and then editing the accepted answer to include the information the is now being requested? Because, we surely don't want to have two answers that only cover part of the updated question, right? | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 13:49 | comment | added | harrymc | @JourneymanGeek: It's a fact of life on this forum that any question or answer may be edited by anyone having enough reputation. From my point of view this is somewhat what happened to you here, so it's not against forum rules. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 13:46 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | The original question already contains what he asked - I'd mentioned one location of those apps on the question itself, "With my classic desktop applications they are in C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs" and I mentioned that they were in appdata as well in a comment. Those are pretty much the same as they always have been. My issue is really, that the 'bounty' was for something thats already there, and out of the scope of the original question as was asked. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 13:44 | comment | added | harrymc | @Sathya: On the other hand, the bounty giver can just generalize the text of the post, so that the two answers will complement each other. I'm not for breaking one subject - the placement of shortcuts to the Windows Modern UI - into two questions, thus separating the subjects of metro and non-metro apps. The title of the question actually applies to both. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 13:37 | comment | added | Sathyajith Bhat Mod | I do think the bounty is relevant now, since the bounty text contains the question.. once the bounty is over, the bounty'd answer makes no sense.. I think we're better off refunding the bounty and then have it asked as a separate question | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 13:30 | history | asked | Journeyman GeekMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |