4 ms·

It was closed because the person closing it didn't recognize bash as a language; the substance of my question wasn't even at issue. After others pointed out th

by jfc 12y ago

It was closed because the person closing it didn't recognize bash as a language; the substance of my question wasn't even at issue. After others pointed out that it is a language, a mod re-opened it and it was answered.

oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
Well, that's clearly ridiculous, but it's good to hear that it was reopened and the system worked.
- hueving 12y ago
  It didn't work very well if all of those hoops had to be jumped through just to have the question recognized as valid.
  - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
    Bugs happen. If they get fixed, the process works. It's unrealistic to think that, in an open system, no-one will ever do the wrong thing.
    - ebiester 12y ago
      If there are enough people complaining that the error recovery system is invoked far too often, the "one-off" bug should instead be given higher priority as a design flaw.
      - Shog9 12y ago
        The problem is, it's easy to pull out specific examples that illustrate bad attitudes, mistakes, etc. Stack Overflow gets somewhere between 8 and 9 thousand questions every day - even with only a small % of those being closed, downvoted, dumped on, etc. that's still a lot of opportunity for error - in both directions (plenty of embarrassingly-bad and outright abusive/trolling posts stick around too long too). So, there are checks and balances and venues for appeal and we try and provide opportunities for both automated systems and humans to review and appeal any decision. If you're patient, it works. If you're not... Well, it's probably not a good place for you to be.
    - collyw 12y ago
      This wasn't a bugfix, it was a workaround.
- protomyth 12y ago
  "the system worked" A system that requires moderation / higher authority to work normally isn't really working, it just has an error recovery mechanism. Systems built on the negative being right and the positive needing proof are particularly painful.

by jfc 12y ago

oneeyedpigeon 12y ago

Well, that's clearly ridiculous, but it's good to hear that it was reopened and the system worked.

hueving 12y ago
It didn't work very well if all of those hoops had to be jumped through just to have the question recognized as valid.
- oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
  Bugs happen. If they get fixed, the process works. It's unrealistic to think that, in an open system, no-one will ever do the wrong thing.
  - ebiester 12y ago
    If there are enough people complaining that the error recovery system is invoked far too often, the "one-off" bug should instead be given higher priority as a design flaw.
    - Shog9 12y ago
      The problem is, it's easy to pull out specific examples that illustrate bad attitudes, mistakes, etc. Stack Overflow gets somewhere between 8 and 9 thousand questions every day - even with only a small % of those being closed, downvoted, dumped on, etc. that's still a lot of opportunity for error - in both directions (plenty of embarrassingly-bad and outright abusive/trolling posts stick around too long too). So, there are checks and balances and venues for appeal and we try and provide opportunities for both automated systems and humans to review and appeal any decision. If you're patient, it works. If you're not... Well, it's probably not a good place for you to be.
  - collyw 12y ago
    This wasn't a bugfix, it was a workaround.
protomyth 12y ago
"the system worked" A system that requires moderation / higher authority to work normally isn't really working, it just has an error recovery mechanism. Systems built on the negative being right and the positive needing proof are particularly painful.