Timeline for Should we be downvoting conventional answers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2020 at 8:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:42 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.lifehacks.stackexchange.com/ with https://lifehacks.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 1, 2015 at 23:45 | history | edited | Zach Saucier | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 225 characters in body
|
| Jan 1, 2015 at 19:54 | history | rollback | Zach Saucier |
Rollback to Revision 4
|
|
| Jan 1, 2015 at 15:56 | comment | added | Origin | @ZachSaucier As a side note, please do not edit your answer to the point where it completely changes the original intent. That rule applies even to the original answerer: if the edit changes the original intent of the asker/answerer, the edit should not be performed. By changing to a "Yes" answer from a "No", you just completely invalidated the consensus of those who upvoted you before the edit. Next time (and I would strongly suggest you do it now), just post another answer up. You can have multiple answers on the same question. | |
| Jan 1, 2015 at 15:52 | comment | added | Origin | How does one define "conventional"? What may be conventional in one culture may not be in another. For example, how do you cut meat without a knife? Maybe an unconventional solution would be to use chopsticks: one to pin the meat down, the other to slowly pry the meat apart. However, this is not unconventional at all in Asia, where it's a fairly common technique. | |
| Dec 31, 2014 at 18:21 | comment | added | Zach Saucier | @Gilles Reiterating yourself doesn't help your argument | |
| Dec 31, 2014 at 18:14 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @ZachSaucier If you're going to exclude solutions because they're too conventional (as opposed to because there's something wrong with them), then you are introducing a creative writing exercise where it doesn't belong. | |
| Dec 31, 2014 at 15:46 | history | edited | Zach Saucier | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 116 characters in body
|
| Dec 31, 2014 at 15:28 | comment | added | Zach Saucier | @Gilles If you payed attention to how we define being creative and our definition of lifehack you'd see that what you suggest is not the case. Techniques that "make one's physical life more efficient ... [using] materials that are on hand for uses besides their intended use" is not an exercise in creative writing, it's solving the problem using a lifehack instead of the conventional solution | |
| Dec 31, 2014 at 15:28 | comment | added | J. Musser | @Gilles A lifehack is an alternative solution, not just a solution. It has to be something people (or at least the OP) don't generally think up, thus creative. That fits entirely with our scope. If it's a solution, but it's conventional, not a creative alternative, it is not a hack, and doesn't belong on the site. | |
| Dec 31, 2014 at 11:53 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | Your “yes” answer contradicts the “new scope”. It defines lifehacks as ways to solve problems, not as creative writing exercises. | |
| Dec 31, 2014 at 11:39 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | Uh? Why did you change your answer to the opposite position? That makes the voting no longer reflect agreement with your position. | |
| Dec 31, 2014 at 5:02 | history | edited | Zach Saucier | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 798 characters in body
|
| Dec 31, 2014 at 1:02 | history | edited | Zach Saucier | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 139 characters in body
|
| Dec 31, 2014 at 0:53 | history | edited | Zach Saucier | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Dec 15, 2014 at 15:34 | history | edited | Zach Saucier | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 258 characters in body
|
| Dec 12, 2014 at 14:32 | history | edited | Zach Saucier | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 123 characters in body
|
| Dec 11, 2014 at 22:15 | comment | added | Angelo Fuchs | +1 You expressed it much better than I did | |
| Dec 11, 2014 at 22:01 | vote | accept | GimmeTehRepz | ||
| Dec 11, 2014 at 16:07 | history | answered | Zach Saucier | CC BY-SA 3.0 |