Plus one could view it as passive-aggressive. By deleting it, only 10k users can see it (ie, the op and most others that really can see the meat being made) but they can't vote or comment on it.
Personally I'm a fan of such things only because I like to understand when and why people I am familiar with leave. In other words, I like to rubber neck.
@Pollyanna same here, and I don't like to see people leave when they have possible valid complaints which instead of leaving they could actually act to change
I know that it's par for the course but I don't think it has to be
For example he deleted (deleted, not closed) a very valid question on the new edit functionality. before deleting he commented that it was 'too early to have this discussion". Turns out the OP actually had found a serious flaw in the system, same question was posted by someone else weeks later and waffles agreed it was an issue, and fixed it
I disagree with Jeff pretty continuously and I think that was sane; you can't have a swath of bug reports about a feature still in development; they would've had to sift through them all
The edit question, though, was brought up while editing was in its infancy, so saying it's too early was valid. Deleting it may have been over the top, but if he didn't want to announce it yet, I can understand why. Once it was released, of course bringing it up as a problem was valid.
I can understand closing, although as you yourself said (I think) "If not when the feature is still being developed, then when is the best time to talk about it?"
@TimStone yes, and it didn't bother me that much, and I brought it up only one or two other times I think. I'm not trying to argue about this point specifically, I was trying to use it as an example of a decision I disagreed with
My point is, when you disagree, leaving doesn't help. If you feel you have a valid disagreement, make a strong case.
It took Jeff what, a year or so? to break me of the habit of adding "-Adam" to every post. Rich took it as a personal challenge to rid SO of all my signatures.
I still don't agree with it, but they decided to make it officially bad, rather than a suggestion.
@DanGrossman I had to give up SO. It is too easy for me to lose hours answering questions. Meta, however, doesn't have so much new content, so I can participate and only kill an hour a day or so, when I visit.
I'm blessed with a six figure income from my websites even if I don't do any work, so I have almost unlimited time to waste answering questions or whatever else I feel like doing.
Today I bought girl scout cookies at the mall, bought a book at Barnes&Noble, answered a few questions and read reddit. I answered one help desk ticket.
I see that it executes it and passes jQuery as the $ argument, so I can see how that works, but I am not for the life of me understanding what else you're passing it. Oh wait. Nevermind, I just got it
Tricky tricky referencing functions above where you define them
At least I can rest happy knowing that I was right that it was going to take me way longer than 90 minutes to finish up my code, if only to remember where the hell I was last time :(
I think it's possible to access the page variables in Greasemonkey through unsafeWindow, but by injecting the script into the page we know it works in all userscript-supporting browsers.
@TheRenamedException figures. I'm not into this whole clearing my cache thing. I prefer incognito if I'm going to be worried about that. I'll have to find another way
Yeah, it works really well. I was using Olark before and their code got all f**ked up on W3Counter because of the high concurrency... SnapEngage has no problem with it.
@DanGrossman that's so funny, cos everytime I ask someone who supposedly knows, they say the EULA requires a certain type of hardware :\ I could always ask on askdifferent.com
