Timeline for Should all titles be in the form of questions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 26, 2019 at 4:53 | comment | added | Mazura | without the need to open and read the full text +1. Intentionally clickbait or not, it is anyway if I have to click it... | |
| Apr 14, 2019 at 12:46 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 Mod | I'm pretty sure that it is about editing the title. I'm just nit-picking about two things out of your whole answer that I disagree with. | |
| Apr 14, 2019 at 12:45 | comment | added | Raffzahn | @wizzwizz4 Oh, well, that's a no brainer. Questions with a hard to read wording do of course gain from edition - usually more the Text than the Title. But it's also even more so critical, as first the OP's intention has to be understood to be edited in, not the meaning understood by a quick scan. It stays a critical task anyway. I feel you're too much on the edit vs. close discussion here, but as far as I understood the question asked (here) it is about editing titles of questions not in line to be closed - or is it? | |
| Apr 14, 2019 at 12:07 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 Mod | This is what I was talking about. | |
| Apr 13, 2019 at 10:59 | history | edited | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 29 characters in body
|
| Apr 12, 2019 at 22:18 | history | edited | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 27 characters in body
|
| Apr 12, 2019 at 21:39 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 Mod | Oh, no, now I'm going to be worrying more about doing stuff! :-( Although, closing is good; it gives an opportunity for the question to be fixed before being re-opened without people posting an answer to a changing question. | |
| Apr 12, 2019 at 20:30 | comment | added | Raffzahn | Oh, there is no doubt, closing is always the least entertaining option. I try to restrict this to contentless, opinionated and clear off topic. Given, we may have different standards for each of these :)) One more point,just because noone opposed in one case doesn't mean it has been acknowledged. That sounds like an application of the 'silent majority' misconception - beside, every case may be different. | |
| Apr 12, 2019 at 20:24 | history | edited | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 26 characters in body
|
| Apr 12, 2019 at 20:23 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 Mod | As little as possible, and only if it's close-worthy, but yes; better an on-topic question that gets the OP what answers they want that are possible than a closed question that gets the OP no answers because it's unanswerable / off-topic. I'm struggling to remember an example, but I'm pretty sure I did it at some point and nobody got cross. | |
| Apr 12, 2019 at 20:20 | history | edited | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 26 characters in body
|
| Apr 12, 2019 at 20:19 | comment | added | Raffzahn | @wizzwizz4 if you say 'Your last two paragraphs aren't quite right' (I assume it's about the ones after the divider), does it mean you think it's ok to change the meaning of a question if the reader/editor thinks it should be targeted different? Serious? (Or did I just not fully understand what you meant?) | |
| Apr 12, 2019 at 20:05 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 Mod | Your last two paragraphs aren't quite right, I don't think. The former applies only when the question is not close-worthy; if a question's close-worthy, it's fine to edit it so that it's not. The latter isn't really what answers are for; it's more what comments are for. (How you do it is ok, but I don't think many people could pull it off.) | |
| Apr 12, 2019 at 18:37 | history | edited | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 875 characters in body
|
| Apr 12, 2019 at 18:30 | history | answered | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |