Timeline for Closed question "This question needs details or clarity" but without explanation of what should be more detailed of clarified
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12, 2021 at 19:00 | comment | added | elemtilas | @DuncanDrake --- That's a thing. You'd have to do some careful editing. This is also one reason why it's very important for respondents to make sure the question actually makes sense before answering. | |
| Mar 12, 2021 at 18:27 | comment | added | Duncan Drake | @elemtilas thank you for your suggestions. My concern is also that the edit may invalidate some of the answers. It becomes a narrow path... | |
| Mar 11, 2021 at 22:18 | comment | added | elemtilas | @DuncanDrake --- See section 3 in my answer, which addresses your concern here. | |
| Mar 8, 2021 at 11:47 | comment | added | Starfish Prime | The close-voting system does not seem to work that well here for reasons I don't fully understand. It seems quite easy for a question to be closed, and quite hard to get it reopened again. The mechanism seems to work OK on other sites where the subject focus is tighter and/or there are more active users with sufficient privileges and diverse opinions, but it has always seemed a bit of a poor fit on WB. | |
| Mar 7, 2021 at 1:09 | comment | added | Mike Serfas | There may be some procedure here I don't know about, but what seems most sensible to me is to revise and then have a postscript explaining the revision very briefly (so readers don't wonder where "clientes" came from if you use a different term now) | |
| Mar 7, 2021 at 1:05 | comment | added | Duncan Drake | Thank you for the suggestion. Is editing best done by completely erasiong the previous text of the question or should i just leave it (maybe witha a strikethrough style?) followed by the addition of details / clarification? | |
| Mar 6, 2021 at 3:04 | history | answered | Mike Serfas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |