Timeline for Why are we so uptight?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:51 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:44 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.ux.stackexchange.com/ with https://ux.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 3, 2015 at 5:21 | comment | added | plainclothes | Here we are with a stick up our butt again: ux.stackexchange.com/questions/48321/toilet-paper-orientation < this site has got to loosen up if it wants to stay relevant. Just look at the community exploding on the UX Slack group. They're getting something right. | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 19:34 | vote | accept | rk. | ||
| Apr 13, 2013 at 1:26 | answer | added | Jeff | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 11, 2013 at 23:11 | history | edited | Charles Wesley | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body; edited title
|
| Apr 8, 2013 at 15:25 | comment | added | Eric | I just had one of mine closed.. I understand that yes, it could be interpreted as an unproductive image request, but it was a question about what a good fitting icon is in a given context. I don't understand how that's not productive and healthy discussion on this site. Okay, maybe it was too open ended and we're not looking for discussion? Then why does this site exist? This is not programming, there's not one correct answer. It's UX. GUI design, graphic design, IA, etc.. ux.stackexchange.com/questions/37799/… | |
| Apr 7, 2013 at 22:54 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackUX/status/321033200380047360 | ||
| Apr 6, 2013 at 7:25 | comment | added | Zelda Mod | @Mohit it usually is; there's almost always a "in it's current form" or other hint to edit in there; all of the close reasons except Duplicate do. Though I've love thought they should include a direct link to edit the post itself to make that implication clearer | |
| Apr 6, 2013 at 5:17 | comment | added | Mohit | @BenBrocka - If "chance to reframe" is one of the reasons to close, why is it not explicitly mentioned in the closing message? | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 19:48 | comment | added | Benny Skogberg | +1 It's always nice to have our standards evaluated and questioned! | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 14:22 | comment | added | rk. | Nice to hear that! | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 14:21 | comment | added | JonW Mod | Your issue with the Not a Real Question, and the other close reasons is also being addressed so you're certainly not alone in not liking how it currently works. | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 14:20 | history | edited | rk. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 660 characters in body
|
| Apr 4, 2013 at 13:19 | comment | added | Zelda Mod |
How about we give them a chance to reframe the question or remove it themselves That's exactly what closing is, moreso the chance to reframe than remove it themselves though. The only thing is we don't want answers while they're reframing the question, otherwise you can end up with multiple answers referring different, past states of the question which makes it all just a mess.
|
|
| Apr 4, 2013 at 12:55 | answer | added | JonWMod | timeline score: 11 | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 12:38 | history | asked | rk. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |