13
$\begingroup$

One issue with the site lasting as long as it has is that technology has changed quite a bit since its early days, and so discussions of technology are extremely out of date. In particular, when doing some research of my own on online collaboration tools, I encountered the question Tools for long-distance collaboration, which I'm sure was very useful in 2010, but is pretty irrelevant now.

I'm sure to get people's thoughts on what to do if you want up-to-date answers to these questions. Post essentially the same question, but add "except for a decade later"? Decide that questions that involve specifics of technology aren't a good fit for the site?

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ A hundred years from now, people might be put off by eleven or more questions about collaborative technology, while some would appreciate the recorded timeline on MathOverflow. I think a new question is reasonable, especially if some contrast or differentiation can be provided in the new question. So I have no problem with an update. Gerhard "Worry Instead About Jokes Thread" Paseman, 2019.10.10. $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman Oct 10 at 14:17
  • $\begingroup$ I agree: update the question at the top and make it clear that newer solutions are desired. $\endgroup$ – David Roberts Oct 11 at 3:48
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think it's cleaner and neater to have new questions every now and then. If in the future we figure out that this is too much noise we can do a one-off project to merge them all into a single thread. But once a decade or so seems like the appropriate amount of time between versions of this question. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 11 at 15:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DavidRoberts This is not an superable barrier, but the question is now protected (by Community, so presumably this was an algorithmic decision about the question being dormant and already having lots of answers), so I would be using moderator powers to unprotect it and ask for new answers. $\endgroup$ – Ben Webster Oct 11 at 15:37
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ To be more clear, I agree with Asaf that a new question with a link to the former is warranted. There should be something about the new question that says why the old answers do not suffice. Gerhard "Update Was Not Sufficiently Clear" Paseman, 2010.10.11. $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman Oct 11 at 17:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think it is a bad idea when old answers about technologies that are no longer relevant are mixed in with new answers. This will be very confusing to whoever is reading the answers. Unless we actually delete older answers, it makes more sense to ask a new question. $\endgroup$ – Dmitri Pavlov Oct 13 at 15:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BenWebster: Doesn't protection just mean that brand-new users ( < 10 rep) can't post answers? So new answers can still be collected (from people with >= 10 rep) even if you leave it protected. Maybe you are thinking of "locked". $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Oct 13 at 15:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Regarding your question about "not a good fit for the site", I might ask if there is anything specifically mathematical about long-distance collaboration tools you want to consider. That is, would this question have a better home at a more generalist site like "academia"? $\endgroup$ – S. Carnahan Nov 3 at 15:54
7
$\begingroup$

An apparent majority in the comments seems to agree that you should ask a new question, so I am writing that as an answer here. It may help to close (or ask for closure) of the old version, if only to keep answers from different decades from getting mixed up. I also think it is good to have links between different versions of the question.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Also to avoid duplicate closure votes, a link to this meta discussion would be useful. $\endgroup$ – YCor Nov 14 at 11:23
6
$\begingroup$

One option is to start a bounty. One of the bounty reasons you can choose is "Current answers are outdated".

I think this is Stack Exchange's intended solution for this, though that doesn't necessarily mean we have to always do it that way.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .