Timeline for Please refrain from closing proper but imperfect questions so quickly
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2020 at 8:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jun 8, 2017 at 11:00 | comment | added | terdon Mod | @KonradRudolph yes, OK, there is some competition but I see BioStars as a better place to ask things that require more discussion whereas here will be more focused and strictly Q&A. So while some questions would indeed fit both site, many others wouldn't because they are posted more as discussion topics than as specific questions with one (or few) correct® answers. I see room for both sites to exist in parallel. | |
| Jun 8, 2017 at 10:54 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | “We do not compete with BioStars” — Yes, we do. Very directly. BioStars may be less focused than we are, but that doesn’t not make it a competitor, it just makes it less focused (and is one of the reasons I don’t like it). In fact, this platform will be a failure unless it manages to pull the vast majority of the Q&A traffic from BioStars over. If that isn’t competition, I don’t know what is. | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 22:05 | comment | added | terdon Mod | @user172818 absolutely. If we can understand the intent behind the question, we should edit and fix it, not close. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise; did I do so? On the other hand, it is important to understand that closing isn't final. That's why it's called "putting on hold" first and only becomes "closed" if the question isn't edited. If it is edited, it is automatically put into the reopen queue and we can vote to reopen it. | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 22:01 | comment | added | user172818 | We should not close a question just because it can be reworded in a better way. What is more important is the intention. | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 13:06 | history | edited | terdonMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 24 characters in body
|
| Jun 6, 2017 at 13:05 | comment | added | terdon Mod | @Karel the edit changed from "why is it so popular" which is purely opinion based (because people like it) to "why is it better than other mappers" which is a claim that can be refuted or proven. That's a pretty importan difference. but you're right, it never made that claim; I thought it had, my bad. | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 12:31 | comment | added | Karel Břinda | The question about SMALT never made a claim that it is the most popular aligner for bacterial data and wasn't changed at all. The only edit was an update of the title (so popular => better for) and splitting into paragraphs. See the edit history: bioinformatics.stackexchange.com/posts/308/revisions | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 9:38 | history | edited | terdonMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Jun 6, 2017 at 9:36 | comment | added | Ian Sudbery | Yes, I agree that this site shouldn't be about competing with Biostars - its should be here to serve a different audience. | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 22:19 | comment | added | neilfws | +1 for pointing out that this entire endeavour is not about "SE vs Biostars". | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 16:45 | history | answered | terdonMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |