|
Biggest problem is that 90% of the "answers" to such old questions are posted by users who have made a blog, or a web or something like that, then do a search related to the thema and start posting only links to the other site. Which actually is spam / site driving and to be reported.
Collateral damage is: The question gets back at the top of the active list and other users who don't pay attention to the timestamps start adding more answers as they think it is a "legitime" and current situation.
That's why it might be a bit tricky about the answering "old questions"
Additionally, if the question didn't have worthy answers... then I don't care if someone answers a 2+ years old question with something that works, this solution can always be useful for future users searching something similar.
But...
if the answer doesn't add any value at all, then... it is another thing.
if the concrete user just answered a lot of old questions in low time it could be as described above or just reputation hunt
At least this is my opinion
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes i got it.Answering old question without making useful sense for a Question will be consider as Spam.  .Thank you.
~R@JEES#
|
|
|
|
|
Not exactly. The conclusion is: it depends on the case.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
We are not reporting them just for answering, but for posting garbage as answers; there is a difference. If someone posts a non-spam response I just tell them not to waste time on old questions.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your useful reply.
~R@JEES#
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: I just tell them not to waste time on old questions
Why?
Just because the OP (most likely) won't need the answer anymore doesn't mean someone else doing a search on the problem can't use the answer.
K that assumes people actually search for a solution before asking but there are a few of those people left (I'm one of them )
Or the OP can then compare with his solution (if he ever found one).
Or the OP did a work around because he didn't find a solution and now he has, and has learned something new for the future.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Deketelaere wrote: Why?
Firstly, because it tends to clutter the queue with old questions, and the majority of them already have answers.
Secondly, such answers very rarely add anything to what is alread posted, or are not really solutions.
Thirdly, because in most cases the original questioner has moved on, as evidenced by the number of replies to suggestions.
And lastly, because so many people never bother to search before asking their questions.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: Firstly, because it tends to clutter the queue with old questions, and the majority of them already have answers.
Granted, if the question has an answer and yours doesn't add anything it's indeed not needed to add it.
Richard MacCutchan wrote: Thirdly, because in most cases the original questioner has moved on, as evidenced by the number of replies to suggestions.
Still doesn't mean another person with the same problem can't benefit from it.
Richard MacCutchan wrote: And lastly, because so many people never bother to search before asking their questions.
Yes but, k I have nothing here
I guess those who search first are a minority.
I still hate it tho when I search for a problem, find a question that is exactly the same as my problem but doesn't have an answer after many years.
|
|
|
|
|
Let's say question "Why am I here ?" variation #38847772666 has been closed by our duly diligent watcher-overs. The question is still there sans content, but proudly memorializing the names of its killers  ... comments/Solutions gone bye-bye.
There's some speculation that clicking "Improve Question" and doing something could lead to some kind of re-animation.
curiously, Bill
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
hi,
my article at The Internet of Things[^] lost its images when I first uploaded it, so I fixed it.
I went back today to look at it (just because, well, I liked it!) - and the images are gone again.
Rather than fix it, thought I would report it and leave it alone so perhaps the cause can be traced...
It's not a biggie - as the words are worth 1,000 pictures
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Oops. All fixed.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
The question becomes updated and jumps to the top of the QA list...There is any solution?
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: There is any solution?
Solution for what? You edited it, right? So, it shows at the top by design.
And isn't it a good thing, then SPAM will be easier to find and mark?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
No...
See this question: Abstraction vs Encapsulation with example code[^]
It is in the top 10 of QA now (moving down slowly)...
All that happened that one of the protectors removed the spam answer and that marked the question as updated...
I ask for a solution to NOT to mark a question updated where the reason for the update is spam removing...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: I ask for a solution to NOT to mark a question updated where the reason for the update is spam removing
So the next question is how will the code know that the reason for the update is SPAM removing?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I asked it as a question instead reporting as bug
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it makes sense to me that it was edited, it should show as recently edited.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
It was edited only in the physical sense, but spiritually speaking...
(ok it almost midnight here and I should go to sleep)
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
For me it is/was very confusing....the first one was reported in spam&abuse, I could recognize the current answer for a two year old question.
All the other N year old questions came "on top" because edit==delete spam, but the answer of today was allready deleted.
So it is much more transparent if the question does not become the actual date after removing "spam"
Bruno
[strange English I know]
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
(Spam reports || Protector delete) != (improve answer/question || owner delete || new answer)
It should be possible to differenciate.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
*lol* and I was thinking I'm the only one -because I'm a n00b- who does not understand what is going on. So for all...please think about such thing if you you have the feeling to rebuke a n00b what is going on.
__This message is General__ and __not a personal reply for KEP__!
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I learned it in the hard way, when innocently answered the question and got comments about answering year old questions (I didn't checked the date as the question was on the top of the list)... 
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Same for me, I do not crosscheck everything....ok, the longer the more I do. But what I observed, same happens also to other very high pointed members, that they answer three year old question, because it came on top because of something we discuss her 
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I think we've all been caught out like that before now 
|
|
|
|
|
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
