« first day (2536 days earlier)      last day (323 days later) » 
00:00 - 22:0022:00 - 00:00

10:00 PM
@cigien Those sound like they are mostly just giving credit to the work that came before. Giving such credit is generally a good thing. In some circles, particularly academia, it's definitely required. It's desired here, but if it's required would depend on the specifics (mostly as to if the new post would be considered a derivative work). In general, it's not something I'd encourage people to remove.
 
@Makyen True, even if there's more than one way, and they're vastly different, there's rarely half a dozen truly different ways of writing a few lines of code :) The C++ comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek :)
 
@cigien I see. That's.. probably improvable :)
 
@Makyen Yeah, I'm in academia myself, and we're very strict about that. I kind of thought it's a lot more lax in the programming world, and I fear I've just overestimated how lax it is. Agreed, I won't do that any more.
@Scratte Yeah, I'm just not going to do that any more.
@Makyen That option seems reasonable as well. I'm not too worried really. This kind of situation doesn't occur nearly often enough for there to be even an appearance of a pattern of impropriety. Still, no harm hedging my bets I suppose. Thanks :)
 
@Scratte Yeah, needing to link to the actual license from an SE page is debatable. If SE had an actual link in the page to the license, then I'd say that would be sufficient. However, the link which SE provides is actually a link to a page of links to the licenses. I think that probably complies with the spirit of the license, but I'm unsure if it complies with the actual wording.
 
@Makyen I see. So we could potentially all be doing it wrong.. that's a little disturbing. I'm not sure if I should change my approach though, as I think it would kind of seem like noise or fluff, if I did.
I see what they did. They can't link to 4.0, since not all is 4.0..
@Makyen If I may, the Answer to the license post that you made, is a very good read. I remember having read it before. I think you also wrote another one, perhaps on meta.stackexchange, that was also very thorough about licensing and the change from 3.0 to 4.0.
 
10:26 PM
@Scratte Thank you. Yes, the other answer you're thinking about is an answer I wrote to "Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0", which basically says that what they did at that time wasn't appropriate and that to resolve the situation they created by changing the license in the TOS, they would need to implement basically what they eventually implemented wrt. disclosing and handling the licensing of different content.
There are some corner cases which I think could still use some work, but what they've ended up with seems largely in compliance with the licenses, which is a really good thing. At a minimum, it is dramatically better than what they were doing at the time I wrote that.
 
How many delete votes can it take for a post to be deleted? This has 5 delete votes already.
 
@cigien Up to 10. The tooltip for the delete button should tell you how many more are needed for the particular post.
 
@Makyen Oh, wow. Yeah, it does, thanks. That one needs 10 it seems :p
@Makyen May I say, you're incredibly patient and helpful. Fair warning, if you keep answering my questions, I'm just going to keep asking them ;)
5
 
@cigien Thanks. Answering questions is normally no problem. There are times when I'm doing other things, so responses may be delayed, but I'm happy to help when/where I can.
 
@Makyen That's perfect. My questions are never urgent. I'd much rather have a well-written, thoughtful response a day, or two, or even later, rather than an immediate incomplete one :)
 
10:37 PM
@cigien Sometimes you can search chat and find an answer already :) Chat search does have it's limits though and having been part of the conversation helps a lot.
 
@Scratte Yeah, I've tried that before, and it has worked at times, kind of... I'll need some more practice before I can use it effectively I think.
 
@cigien You can also ask. If I remember a previous conversation, I usually try to search for it.
 
@Scratte May I ask, how long have you been active here? This room specifically I mean?
 
I seem to have a better memory for stuff like that than for technical things like proper syntax :D
@cigien Not very long. I joined the room on the day of my first reviews, as I wasn't sure what I was doing and I wanted to know how worried I should be if I made the wrong choice in one. Then.. I get review suspended for one of them, and I figured I had better pick up some pointers :)
I can see that I must have first visited the room on January 28th.
 
@Scratte Ha, I should have done that myself. As soon as I got privileges to access review queues, I started using them, and then a short while later I got a 3 week suspension. I found the suspension reason rather unfair, and went on meta to see if I could find an explanation. Turns out, I was misusing the triage queue, and I was not the only one. I actually haven't touched triage after that :( I should probably get back to it at some point.
If I'd known of this room then, I'd have come here earlier :)
 
10:51 PM
@cigien Mine was only 4 days. But I remember spending a lot of time reading all the posts about reviewing. And all the posts linked from those. And I ended up only reading meta posts for a very long time. I figured Late Answers were a little more easy since the rules on "Not an Answer" are much fewer. I only recently went back to Triage after having doing First Posts for a while.
My Answer rate dropped significantly though. Reading meta posts and doing reviews took up my time.. so, relatively, I gained more reputation the first two weeks of my account, than ever since.
 
@Scratte I prefer learning from mistakes, and breaking things, it sticks much better :) I wasn't annoyed by the suspension per se, but I thought it escalated, so starting at 3 weeks was the annoying bit :( But at least I learned from it, I haven't been suspended since :)
 
@cigien I do not think you started at three weeks :) The default is 4 days, and doubles every time. So 8, then 16, then 32.. and perhaps you only found out about it 11 days into that one. I think you can ask if you want to know for sure though.
 
@Scratte Huh, maybe I'm misremembering. I'll see if I can find that in my profile.
 
@cigien I was just very confused. So I didn't understand what was wrong with the review. It's hard to learn if you don't know what is wrong, no? :) That's why I stayed in here.
 
10:59 PM
It doesn't say in your profile. Only moderators can see it.
 
@Dharman What do you mean exactly?
 
I had my answer but the question was so unclear that I still don't know what the issue was.
There is now an accepted answer that I don't agree with and it is accepted for reasons unknown. I don't know why I bothered writing an answer to this question
 
@cigien Might be worth another shot singe they updated the buttons. And that's your only review suspension, which is impressive
 
@Machavity Yeah, I see that message pinned :) I might try triage again now. Say, you're a mod, would it be too much trouble to check the time span of that suspension? I distinctly remember it being about 3 weeks.
@Dharman Aah, I see. I didn't see your deleted answer. That cv-pls reason is confusing though, it doesn't have anything to do with the close reason.
 
@cigien 16 days
 
11:04 PM
It explains why there is my deleted answer.
 
Suspensions can be custom, but they default to powers of 2
 
@Machavity Ah, thanks for checking :) I was misremembering then. Maybe I was just 3 weeks worth of disappointed :p
@Dharman Indeed, but I was under the impression that cv-pls reasons should only contain the close reason. Is that right?
 
I don't recall that, but maybe you are right. However, I believe a close reason is mandatory yet extra explanation helps to make a decision.
 
@Dharman I think there's a rule about that :)
 
@Dharman Sure, I just didn't find that explanation useful personally :p No worries :)
@Dharman Hmm FAQ says "[tag:cv-pls] close reason https://stackoverflow.com/q/12345". I think additional explanation should be separate.
 
11:13 PM
@cigien "Additional factual information in the request reason is fine, particularly when it's there to help other users save time when evaluating the post, or to help them make the choice to click-through to the question/answer."
 
@Dharman I'm not sure "I don't know why I bother" matches "Additional factual information"
 
Given that it lead to a prolonged discussion my information was not clear, which is often the problem with me. I think people have the context of my thoughts but for some reason people don't know what I am thinking at any given moment.
 
(but I hammered it anyway :)
 
@Dharman Ah, yes, you're right, it's the last bullet in "What Should Request Reasons Contain?" I missed that, thanks :)
 
I deleted an answer and I requested CV because I gave up on trying to salvage that question.
 
11:16 PM
I do understand your frustration...
 
Not sure what complexity class trying to work out what Dharman is thinking would be in..
 
NP-Hard at least, if it's even computable ;)
 
Yes, I was thinking EXPTIME :) Maybe even for Dharman ;)
 
@Dharman There's a nice very answer there. The question doesn't seem to be salvageable at first glance, but maybe that answer should be kept around somehow?
 
@cigien I didn't find anything useful in that answer. Do you have something particular in mind?
It's just a bunch of links
 
11:24 PM
@Dharman It's well written, and covers a fair amount of ground. I suppose the text to link ratio may be lower than one would like.
@Dharman Ok, you're right. Without the links, it's still well written, but maybe there's not enough content to keep it around.
 
I don't think this answer is even possible to be found in a normal way. Even if someone finds that answer which link are they looking for? You don't have to vote if you are unsure, and if nobody else agrees then it's ok making my vote the lone vote on that question in eternity.
 
@cigien The other Answer however, seems a little.. short.
 
11:40 PM
@Dharman No, I agree. I'm not disputing the del request any more. But yes, also I'm not entirely comfortable voting to del it either.
@Scratte Definitely, that one can go.
 
Reopen queue backfiring?
 
@cigien A message one told me about once, which I still find funny and think of every single time I see a link to it :)
 
@AdrianMole bizarre. But at least an easy decision...
 
@Nick One of the easiest I've had: Obviously, I voted to reopen and gave it an upvote!
... </sarcasm>
 
@Scratte Yeah, sites like that are a pain. I don't know about other languages, but for C++, they're terrible. Take a look at the very first tutorial, it starts off with using namespace std; :(
 
11:53 PM
@AdrianMole it's OK, I'm an Aussie. We know what that looks like :)
 
@cigien I tried out their Java one and found several errors. I didn't even know a lot of Java back then. I contacted them with the information and never heard from them and as far as I know, the errors are still there! :)
 
@Scratte Yeah, I'm not surprised, most of those sites are terrible at fixing mistakes :(
 
00:00 - 22:0022:00 - 00:00

« first day (2536 days earlier)      last day (323 days later) » 
https://chat.stackoverflow.com/transcript/41570/2020/10/31/22-24
chat.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-39
99172
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:OIG3VFIJBTUBWXNM6P37YSWDURVFW3D2
<urn:uuid:94308695-3ed8-40fa-9b16-1c70fd6107b4>
2021-09-19T08:56:26Z
198.252.206.29
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:T5AB2IZ7YCVB7WLEG76JL5OVB2VX56WX
<urn:uuid:f672db4c-b167-4e2e-94aa-69b28fb9c8fe>
https://chat.stackoverflow.com/transcript/41570/2020/10/31/22-24
response
<urn:uuid:9c92add5-8fd8-4908-beaf-1ee2a3ca3d1b>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-39
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-22
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-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/