Timeline for Answering off-topic questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 22, 2019 at 16:43 | comment | added | YCor | Well, I said that the question was not enough "obviously off-topic" to blame the person who posted an answer. Of course this is a bit subjective, but there's no need to formalize a policy about when it should be blamed and when it shouldn't. Also I wouldn't say it's not "allowed" to answer off-topic questions, it's just not recommended, and this of course depends on one's ability to anticipate that the question will be possibly/certainly closed as off-topic. In this particular case, the question could also have been migrated to MathSE, and the good answer would have been too. | |
| May 22, 2019 at 9:44 | history | edited | user140761 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 214 characters in body
|
| May 21, 2019 at 6:26 | history | edited | user140761 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 269 characters in body
|
| May 20, 2019 at 20:18 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | For the specific example behind the link, a better way to handle it would have been to comment why it was off-topic (my reason would be that it contradicts Gelfond-Schneider by work tantamount to an undergraduate exercise) and let others in the community vote to close. I am glad to see the answer anyway. Gerhard "It's Good To Have Reasons" Paseman, 2019.05.20. | |
| May 20, 2019 at 18:23 | history | edited | user140761 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 302 characters in body
|
| May 20, 2019 at 18:10 | answer | added | Gerhard Paseman | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 20, 2019 at 14:36 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | A related older discussion: Answering not research level questions. | |
| May 20, 2019 at 13:52 | history | asked | user140761 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |