@Smitop Sure, the reply's whole text was: "@Smitop does not mean they do not have other accounts that are banned :) I usually do not remove this part from my selection of ARC comments just in case"
@Luuklag I'm not the one who proposed that, best to ping them directly or comment on the answer; I'm not the one coding, with write access, nor who doesn't understand the exceptions (that's a third unmentioned party, and probably a few others).
@SonictheAnonymousHedgehog Every first time asker sees a modal before they ask telling them not to ask questions that aren't about SE... while there may be improvements that can be made to this, I'm not sure that adding something to the sidebar when people are already disregarding the modal (which they have to actually interact with) will be particularly effective.
@Catija I think a significant proportion of people just don't see the modal. What often happens with me is that I load up the question asking form, then click on the title or body field to bring focus to it before the dialog has loaded, and it treats me as having clicked away from the dialog and so it immediately closes and I never see it.
For me, anyway, the modal loads immediately. That said, what was nice about the old one was that you had to both check a box and hit submit before you got past it - there was no way to skip it accidentally - but even then, it didn't actually do anything.
Also, when it comes to the argument that "people disregard the modal and so nothing should be changed with it" - that doesn't necessarily apply to everyone, and in my opinion, making some attempt is still better than making no attempt.
That said, it'd be nice if you'd at least post an update there, stating that the help center part of the request has been completed and what you said about the sidebar and modal.
Also, a bit unrelated: the Site Self-Evaluation review queue's name hasn't yet been given the sentence case treatment
No one will ever see them without seeking them out intentionally.
@SonictheAnonymousHedgehog I understand that - but I'd rather post a complete answer before posting something partial. I didn't update that page because of your FR - I didn't even know about it until you pointed me at it. In general, there's no need for a staff member to update those in the first place. I see people like Glorfindel writing answers like "This seems to have been fixed in the interim".
@SonictheAnonymousHedgehog eh. I do get the desire for documentation but - Its worth thinking about "perfect" vs "good enough" - and well, the staff's been understaffed everywhere for ages
so some degree of leeway for that is good
If its done, its done. 'When' sometimes matters less
@SonictheAnonymousHedgehog I mean, it was edited in mid-September, so even answering now would be "wrong" by your standards. And, again, I didn't edit it to address your FR. I edited it because the link y'all wanted to use for the close reason wasn't something I wanted to use - I had to update the page first so that I could change the close reason.
@Rob Dunno? Maybe? I can't actually change that, it'd require a dev so, as JG said, it'd need a meta post.
I wasn't necessarily referring to the date the response is posted, but typically, such answers include an approximate timeline as to when it was done. (As an example, there was an answer posted to a request in 2018 stating it had been completed in 2013 - and didn't specify when in 2013, but still.)
@JourneymanGeek I think the title here rings a bell, can you please check if it's a second (at least) offense and... do what's needed to be done? Thanks! :)
a.) create a new bogus cryptocurrency using blockchain b.) create the corresponding SE site c.) profit (but only if you're on top of the MLM pyramid) :P
