Timeline for Nominate bountied question for closure
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 31, 2020 at 4:11 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | @LSpice A questions can be removed from the HNQ list by a moderator. A regular user can edit a title to include MathJax - this also removes the question from HNQ. See also: Should moderators in some cases remove a question from the network-wide hot questions list? | |
| May 19, 2020 at 23:10 | comment | added | YCor | @LSpice I agree with this. | |
| May 19, 2020 at 23:07 | comment | added | LSpice | I forget—can questions be manually removed from HNQ? If so, then maybe we should; it seems to me that this is exactly the kind of question that doesn't benefit from having lots of attention drawn to it. | |
| May 12, 2020 at 14:17 | comment | added | user44143 | @MartinSleziak, I have upvoted the request -- thanks! | |
| May 12, 2020 at 4:42 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | @MattF. You might consider supporting this feature request on Meta Stack Exchange: Don't let the association bonus be given away as bounties. (It is somewhat similar to your suggestion.) In fact, if you wish to add some attention to it, you might offer a bounty from your association bonus. ;-) | |
| May 11, 2020 at 13:21 | comment | added | user44143 | Currently anyone with 75 rep can set a bounty -- in particular, anyone with 100 rep from the association bonus for being on a different StackExchange site. I would double the requirement to 150 rep instead. mathoverflow.net/help/privileges | |
| May 10, 2020 at 16:20 | comment | added | YCor | Just to be clear about this aspect: that I mention a question here does not mean that I would flag it. In the question linked to as an answer, I don't see any reason to request cancelation of the bounty by moderators, or to suspect that the bounty was made to prevent closure (there are concrete ways to check this). By the way, one could imagine to deal automatically with this, for instance, prevent bountying a question before $3n$ days if it currently has $n=2,3,4$ bounty votes, time being counted from the last vote, and before 3 days after being reopened (durations not seriously thought). | |
| May 10, 2020 at 16:12 | comment | added | Stefan Kohl Mod | One might consider offering a bounty for the mere purpose of preventing a question from closure as abusive. -- So in such case one might flag as "rude or abusive". | |
| May 10, 2020 at 12:29 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd TrimbleMod | ||
| May 9, 2020 at 16:28 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | In case it is interesting in this context, here is list of bounties which were cancelled by moderators. This is a minor modification of the query suggested by Glorfindel. | |
| May 9, 2020 at 15:46 | comment | added | YCor | @GerhardPaseman I'm not sure anybody really would make such a convoluted strategy, especially comparing the audience here on meta vs main site. Also mentioning a question here draws attention, but not necessarily negative. For the unique answer at the moment, the only feedback is yours and its positive. | |
| May 9, 2020 at 15:25 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Yes, as inviting to add to content (I consider this positive attention). Encouraging what you believe to be quality content by closing certain questions through comments is one thing, that is part of the current framework. You are proposing to systematize a kind of closing that looks to me like systematizing potential abuse; if I don't like your MathOverflow question, I get a sock puppet to bounty it and then add your question to this list to draw more negative attention to it. Gerhard "Is Still Not A Fan" Paseman, 2020.05.09. | |
| May 9, 2020 at 15:14 | comment | added | YCor | @GerhardPaseman my initial idea was to post about this, but this would have been a duplicate. From the linked meta question, I understand that this was already taken in consideration, i.e., we should consider the situation as granted and cope with it. Also part of your comment to the answer rather concerns this post: I understand what you mean (by "goes against what I see as the principle of the forum to let the community decide: you are instead inciting a certain kind of action") but this is only incitation and such practice already exists. | |
| May 9, 2020 at 15:00 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Further, my understanding is that questions which had bounties once can be closed (some not too long time after the bounty expires). If you are pointing out the flaw that once bountied, a question can't be closed again, then that discussion should be about the flaw and not about particular questions. Again, I think the direction this meta question suggests is wrong. Gerhard "Closure Should Be Determined Independently" Paseman, 2020.05.09. | |
| May 9, 2020 at 10:10 | history | asked | YCor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |