Timeline for Hold process suggestion
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Oct 10, 2014 at 21:45 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | "The moderator needs to consolidate this into a message explaining the cause of the hold." This would be a serious bottleneck. We're generally trusting the community (especially experienced members) to do the right thing. If they don't, things can be reverted by others, or appealed. It shouldn't be part of the regular work flow though. | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 20:09 | answer | added | nhinkleMod | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 19:32 | comment | added | fixer1234 | I understand how the process currently works. I'm asking if there might be a better way to handle certain kinds of issues. Avoid the overkill of pulling otherwise good questions and answers from circulation and requiring reviews and re-reviews by many people when the value of the information outweighs the imperfections in the question wording. | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 19:20 | comment | added | Ramhound | If the wording can be improved then it should be, and I'd the question is closed, it will automatically be placed in the queue to be reopened | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 18:10 | comment | added | fixer1234 | I wasn't so much asking about why this particular post was put on hold (and perhaps it isn't the best example). Rather, it was more general -- posts that raise a question of obvious interest and receive good, fact-based answers, but the wording is not ideal. The point was that it might not be the best solution to put such otherwise good questions into the hold/close queue based on potential problems after the evidence is already in that the question does not pose a "threat". | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 17:58 | comment | added | Ramhound |
This is simply a case of the question being to broad, I would argue, the question would not actually lead to opinion-based answers because the estimated lifespan of optical disks is actually known. I would also argue the edit by JakeGould is what caused the question to be closed because it would lead to opinion-based answers. If the question can be improved then it should be improved then voted to be reopened, I don't see any pending edits, why are we discussing it instead of just doing it? Questions are closed by the community not moderators.
|
|
| Oct 10, 2014 at 17:10 | comment | added | random Mod | That question (on storage life of CDs) is also too broad. Maker, storage conditions, quality of materials, use, etc. | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 16:01 | history | asked | fixer1234 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |