3

I flagged a comment as "obsolete" in order for it to be removed (it no longer adds any value). That comment flag was declined, however.

The flagged comment was originally added to an answer to https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/27908/download-and-installation-of-sample-data, and consisted of an explanation of why that answer should be a comment instead. The answer was then converted into a comment to the original question, along with the "answer-comment". In that constellation, it doesn't make any sense, so I believe it's best if it's removed.

Could you explain why my comment flag was declined? When is it appropriate to flag a comment as obsolete? (I'm used to the TeX.stackexchange site, where I believe my flag would have been accepted and the comment deleted; but maybe there are different practices on this site)

1 Answer 1

2

The question is closed, has no answer and no real value for future visitors. I didn't see much value in editing the comments of such a thread. So far, I've been following the rule of only removing abusive comments - for the sake of transparency.

If the general opinion is that comment sections should be edited more heavily, I'm fine with that too but I haven't had the impression so far.

1
  • Ah, okay. I guess that's just a different approach from the TeX site then.
    – Jake
    Jan 30, 2013 at 12:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://gis.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3025/obsolete-comment-flag-on-moved-comment-declined
gis.meta.stackexchange.com
CC-MAIN-2024-10
102173
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:6YIUBFOYFU2DKONE3WDXTYIFVF56ST6T
<urn:uuid:4d5409a7-b439-4b75-a6d4-589ff0013d81>
2024-03-04T11:01:07Z
172.64.144.30
text/html
sha1:KT4D2K3VJMZZOLAOKJMWNPKMUG5PAYV2
<urn:uuid:c4946fb8-5745-4b74-a06c-1c76de692cc2>
https://gis.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3025/obsolete-comment-flag-on-moved-comment-declined
response
<urn:uuid:06f9dae3-550b-4625-8dc3-8beaac11c147>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-10
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for February/March 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-150
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/