3

I don't find myself on SU very often, so I'll outright apologise for coming in and 'causing trouble' but this question caught my eye on the sidebar:

Difference between pinging with and without http://

Unsurprisingly it had long since been answered, but I was particularly surprised at the numerous accusations of spam and falsifying results that were directed at the user.

It seems to me that the OP did exactly the right thing by posting the domain they were having issues with. While in this case it didn't matter, because the issue was his DNS provider hijacking the results, it's not hard to imagine how much easier it is to help fix a DNS issue when you can run your own diagnostics.

I'm actually surprised at the encouragement to use different domains such as example.com - while these are great for documentation, generic examples (Hence the name...) or for when the name is otherwise incidental to the question I don't think it's great practice when the DNS name is material.

Of course, I understand some people (including myself) will always want to keep things anonymous - but that's a matter for the OP, on the understanding that it can make troubleshooting more difficult.

  • I'd also add that at first glance, I didn't see too much wrong if that was the actual domain that had issues, or that we had a policy about this. – Journeyman Geek Jun 22 '15 at 10:32
  • 2
    It probably had something to do with the question getting on the Hot Network Questions list, which always brings out the crowds of people who are just itching to find something to be offended at. I myself did comment on it, but only after a quick Google of the IP and reading the comments and answers. I couldn't see anything particularly bad about it except that it was a bit vague and didn't show any evidence of self research on their problem... – Mokubai Jun 22 '15 at 11:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .