Timeline for Reputation cost of downvoting
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.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
|
|
| May 20, 2013 at 13:13 | comment | added | slhck Mod | That's basically what Parkinson's law of triviality says. Vague and trivial questions can inspire (seemingly) good answers, but still this is not the kind of question that's encouraged. If only not to feed the help vampires. I agree with you that the process of reopening can be improved. If you happen to see a question closed that'd be a great fit on another site, don't hesitate to flag that—any negative score will be removed when migrating it. | |
| May 20, 2013 at 10:28 | comment | added | Kevin Fegan | It is possible (I've seen it) to provide a good/Great answer to a poor question. So, poor questions have their place... they can always be edited and improved. But not (usually) after they have been heavily downvoted or closed (rather than edited) because there is little incentive to do so, and reopening a closed question is harder than it should be. IMHO it is better to improve poor questions, instead of downvoting/closing. Also, some questions are Great questions, but simply off-topic for the site. These can also suffer heavy downvotes/closing rather than more sensible migration path. | |
| May 18, 2013 at 22:08 | history | answered | slhckMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |