@Ano it's in Java, IDK if you're gonna make your chatbot in Java but making your chatbot in Java has some advantages, there's clear documentation for Java (Javadoc) so it's better 🙂
@Anonymous I don't reject and edit because an edit is imperfect - I reject and edit if it introduces redundant formatting, counter-intuitive descriptions, or otherwise does something that shouldn't happen. When that constitutes the majority of the edit, I reject and edit if there's something worth editing.
This one for an instance: it does NOT make sense to introduce explicit tags, because they link to MSE
That means it's useless, redundant formatting that actively damages readability by pretending like the tags actually lead somewhere
@10Rep That is a blatant lie. That was a second edit made after the edit that constituted the edit of the reject and edit
This question showed up in Area 51's meta. Since it concerns behavior across all of stack exchange, I thought I'd post the link here and get opinions on it. I didn't start this post, but I have entered an opinion on it. Feel free to jump over, take a look and enter your opinion as well!
You should conduct this analysis again, this time without telling anyone. When you did it like this, it created two problems:
People might copy three times just to see what would happen when you ran out
Others might think that they actually were running out of copies, and use them sparingly
@Anonymous Your first flag on this post was the correct one. While my co-mod accidentally marked the second one helpful, please do not raise 'low quality' flags on posts that need closing: "Close" isn't an option when reviewing low quality posts, so it doesn't benefit from being put in the low quality posts queue.
@Tinkeringbell I accidentally retracted it, then since I couldn't flag it again as the same thing, I flagged as very low quality because it was also that.
@Zoethe1337Princess Can you please explain why you think saying incorrectly that "this post was marked with [status-complete]" is better than "this post was marked with status-completed"?
@Anonymous And that introduced bad grammar. When the sentence starts with With, adding the rest destroys the sentence. With URLs stripped, your fix reads: "With my original question on MSO was marked with ...". The image quoting is also intentional, because of how the image blends in with the page - extremely standard practice at least on MSO
You should conduct this analysis again, this time without telling anyone. When you did it like this, it created two problems:
People might copy three times just to see what would happen when you ran out
Others might think that they actually were running out of copies, and use them sparingly
This question showed up in Area 51's meta. Since it concerns behavior across all of stack exchange, I thought I'd post the link here and get opinions on it. I didn't start this post, but I have entered an opinion on it. Feel free to jump over, take a look and enter your opinion as well!
You should conduct this analysis again, this time without telling anyone. When you did it like this, it created two problems:
People might copy three times just to see what would happen when you ran out
Others might think that they actually were running out of copies, and use them sparingly
