This is now implemented (build rev 2014.2.27.1403 on sites) as lined out in Shog's answer. We now have a per-site configurable close vote threshold for questions to be enqueued in the close vote review queue. Review tasks with fewer close votes and no do not close review results will be gradually...
Is it possible to be an expert in replace? The newest page of the 10.6k tagged questions contains javascript, php, ant, shell, and more.
Additionally, replace is vague: although most questions are related to regex, and are commonly tagged, some questions like these are unrelated.
On a side note...
Is it possible to be an expert in replace? The newest page of the 10.6k tagged questions contains javascript, php, ant, shell, and more.
Additionally, replace is vague: although most questions are related to regex, and are commonly tagged, some questions like these are unrelated.
On a side note...
@ShadowWizard I answered now here and maybe it was not too broad but I still feel it is a better fit for SU or SF. If you see my answer don't you agree?
This (a bit surprising) answer to this question has just poped in my review queue. How should I react on similar claims, that question is using a copyrighted content as example to picture problem being asked?
Should I:
recommend deletion and do nothing more,
recommend deletion, but leave comme...
@AndrewT. Never edit to make any drastic changes, clean up grammar and typos and fix tags, fix sentence structure if it's a non-native speaker and add image if it's a low rep user < 10 rep who can't upload images. That's a good way to avoid trouble.
Yup, it's part of a coordinated campaign to spam file recovery tools to Stack Overflow, Super User, Server Fault, and other sites on the network: meta.stackoverflow.com/a/269868/19679 . They've been getting progressively more creative with their spam, now seeding questions with one account and answering with another. The real problem is that reviewers are usually approving their spam now, so I have to sweep through every few days and remove the spam that made it through. — Brad LarsonOct 4 at 21:34
I've noticed a pattern in StackOverflow and on another forum I participate on ... a user asks a question, always related to difficulties with corrupted PPT files, and within a short time, gets an answer with vague suggestions, some of them incorrect or irrelevant, and a link to the same site or f...
@TGMCians it is great to buy the stuff at the grocery, chop the stuff and your finger, lovely smells of fresh herbs, burned potatoes and in the end a kitchen that looks like a bomb went off. And I do that every day...
Moderator Note: I purged comments because it turned into "You ought to do this, you ought to do that". If you have an answer for how it should be handled, post an answer so that the community can vote on it. By having the argument in the comments, it appears that you're dumping on the moderator just to dump on the moderator. That's not acceptable here. If you have a comment seeking clarification, post that comment. Once that's done, there's no need for back and forth. — George Stocker ♦yesterday
Post became a debate now :/
@bluefeet my point is, SO moderators still seem to be having difficulties recognising cases that fall under another castle guidance, even when flaggers try to help them by referring to it: 'I run an experiment, flagged it NAA and got decline: "a moderator reviewed your flag, but found no evidence to support it". Wonder how hard is to not find evidence when post has comment referring to guidance...' — gnat2 hours ago
@InfiniteRecursion So is the mod's position effectively that all link-only answers should first have a comment placed on the answer, then wait a few [minutes/hours/days?], then flag for naa?
@Shog9 Question: I'm receiving occasional stackexchange inbox emails; which is fine in itself except I thought I changed my email address on all my profile pages. Do you have a way of finding out which of my profiles has my @gmail.com address still?
(The emails themselves are fairly inconsistent as well, it's weird.)
The one posted by Pham is an interesting case. The body qualifies for "abusive" flag. Yet there is a somewhat sensible title. I still flagged as abusive.
@Shog9 Actually, better question now that I've made sense of it: On all sites, are the notification emails tied to gravatar or just the profile emails?
At this hour, everyday we reply the same questionaire: do you get paid? are you with me? why downvote questions? Feels odd today coz no one is asking...
@SomeKittens Depends. Which room are you in and what are you proposing you discuss. There was a room earlier today that was reprimanded for discussing inappropriate things related to gg
If you coordinate the spamming of a users inbox using our chat system, you will be suspended for a year, no questions asked. - I don't want to see that crap in our chat ever again.
@SomeKittens The mods are generally pretty reasonable. Having a *constructive" discussion about a topic would be okay. Even about "gamergate." The point is to be constructive about it.
What would be the point of such "official guidelines?" People should be capable of having reasonable, mature conversations without needing an instruction manual.
Go to the transcript and read part of that conversation. That has everything to do with it. If you are going to discuss it without it becoming a bash the (fe)male gender and can do so without it becoming a flame war, have at it.
@jadarnel27 Culturally and personally, constructive could mean [slightly] various things. I guess what somekittens is asking, is, What does SO's culture mandate as constructive?
@NickDugger Exactly. While this is an extreme example, I know people who think using racial epithets to describe the benefits of genocide is "constructive". Obviously SO is not like that, but something beyond "Constructive" would help.
@NickDugger I think there's a certain amount of common sense that can be applied without the need to nail down specific guidelines. Beyond that, most mods would just warn you if you're getting out of line. If someone belligerently harps on about whatever it is after that, that's there fault.
That. That's causing problems. You wanna debate something you disagree with? Do it politely, do it constructively, do it like you some day aspire to be A REASONABLE HUMAN BEING WITH OPINIONS THAT MATTER.
@SomeKittens "I know people who think using racial epithets to describe the benefits of genocide is "constructive"" - I don't think any reasonable person would consider that constructive. And I'm sure those people that you know are aware that their perspective is out of the norm.
@jadarnel27 That would be wonderful if true, but these people considered themselves perfectly normal. After all, all their friends agreed with them! There's a reason I moved...
hm, ok, I take that back. He isn't suspended on chat.se.
@SomeKittens basically does your conversation fall under the "be nice" policy? Then you're probably ok.
and unless you're really going over the top you'll usually get a nicer warning than a CM suddenly entering with bold type.
Use common sense, be nice, etc, etc. It isn't that hard, just use respect to the person you're talking to and remember you are talking in a public chat that anyone could find and read at any moment. They probably already are.
@ɥʇǝS Right, so "I feel that what this woman is doing here is not beneficial to effective discourse and, as a whole muddies the waters instead of moving things to a reasonable conculsion. As such, I feel that her continued employment should be called into question." is appropriate?
I'm not really up to speed about this whole GG thing, but if I've learned anything from participating on SE (and chat.se) it is this: If you have any doubts, don't say it. Just don't. It will save you eons of confusion and trouble. Everything you think is not necessarily appropriate for the Stack Exchange network.
@ɥʇǝS he will be if he actually tries to use it / someone forces chat to sync with main-site accounts. The whole point was "leave and think about what has been said, stop trying to use your own bad behavior to segue into some overwrought offsite discussion" - and since the point wasn't taken, that's now enforced.
That being said, you're talking about someone who isn't here to defend himself - a bit of courtesy, please.