Timeline for What should happen to old unanswered questions where the OP didn't even care to check?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 13, 2012 at 14:41 | comment | added | Izzy | OK, coming :) Tnx! | |
| Aug 13, 2012 at 14:40 | comment | added | ale | It's part of the 10K+ tools. | |
| Aug 13, 2012 at 14:17 | comment | added | Izzy | OK -- got it. Btw: Is there any way to explicitly check for questions having close-/reopen-votes? As this could help to bring things to attention (you said you "regularly trawl the questions with close votes", so I take it there is a way to do so I did not yet find). | |
| Aug 13, 2012 at 14:12 | vote | accept | Izzy | ||
| Aug 13, 2012 at 13:55 | comment | added | ale | I won't speak for the Moderators (because I'm not one any more) but in general you should only flag things that require a Moderator's attention. (Moderators are a site's Exception Handlers.) Since you have enough rep to vote-to-close you should do that. Don't worry about your votes "aging away"; that'll only happen if a bunch of people who can also cast close votes see the question and don't vote themselves. On the other hand, you could go ahead and flag all you want; there's no requirement that a Mod has to act on your flag. If they disagree with too many though you'll lose the ability. | |
| Aug 13, 2012 at 13:50 | comment | added | Izzy | OK, thanks again -- I'll go with that. Though I'm afraid most people might "ignore" those old ones, and thus my "vote-to-close" would die of loneliness. So should they be flagged additionally -- or would that rather look "offending"? | |
| Aug 13, 2012 at 13:43 | comment | added | ale | Use your best judgment. I say two weeks is more than enough time for the OP to provide more information. I regularly trawl the questions with close votes and open flags lists. If someone doesn't agree with your vote-to-close they'll just ignore it. | |
| Aug 13, 2012 at 13:34 | comment | added | Izzy | Thanks -- that's a word. I already left the question for missing information on some of them (which not already had it). Remains the question to define the "reasonable amount of time": 2 weeks? 3..4 weeks? | |
| Aug 13, 2012 at 13:26 | comment | added | ale | If the question can't be answered without some other piece of information from the OP, that information has been asked for, and a reasonable amount of time has passed for the OP to provide it, then vote-to-close/flag it as "Not a Real Question". "This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form." | |
| Aug 13, 2012 at 13:24 | comment | added | Izzy | First thank you for your answer -- I guess I was a bit unclear in one point: Some question are really interesting ones -- but in order to answer them, they'd need just a piece of feedback from the OP, which is impossible because of his absence-without-return. So those questions cannot be answered -- but still are neither off-topic nor ambiguous or whatever-reason-to-close. The only thing I could think of here is to flag them for "moderator attention", which I don't want to abuse. | |
| Aug 13, 2012 at 12:48 | history | answered | ale | CC BY-SA 3.0 |