Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Post History
The question post "Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel" is closed as a duplicate of the later "Second Iteration of Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel" and has a n...
#5: Post edited
by
Monica Cellio
·
2021-03-21T02:27:54Z (almost 4 years ago)
We had fixed this locally (by editing the close reasons here) a while back, but it's now fixed in the code.
#4: Post edited
by
msh210
·
2020-08-23T13:07:47Z (over 4 years ago)
better
- The question post ["Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel"](/questions/276642) is closed as a duplicate of the later ["Second Iteration of Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel"](/questions/277346) and has a notice on it:
- > **closed** as duplicate by luap42 on Aug 18, 2020 at 15:55
- >
- > This question has been answered before. See: [Second Iteration of Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel](/questions/277346)
To my mind, at least, "before" sounds like the "Second Iteration of Drafting" question was answered before the "Drafting" question was asked. Or at the very least that it was answered before the "Drafting" question was closed. Neither of those is true.- I think the notice should say not "has been answered before" but "has been addressed elsewhere". This is more vague both as to timeline and as to whether or not the other question already has answers, which means it applies accurately to a broader of range of closureworthy questions; yet it is clear enough.
- ---
- I'm marking this a [bug](/categories/3/tags/394) because the current implementation is inaccurate or misleading.
- The question post ["Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel"](/questions/276642) is closed as a duplicate of the later ["Second Iteration of Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel"](/questions/277346) and has a notice on it:
- > **closed** as duplicate by luap42 on Aug 18, 2020 at 15:55
- >
- > This question has been answered before. See: [Second Iteration of Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel](/questions/277346)
- To my mind, at least, "before" sounds like the "Second Iteration of Drafting" question was answered before the "Drafting" question was asked. Or, at the very least, like it was answered before the "Drafting" question was closed. Neither of those is true.
- I think the notice should say not "has been answered before" but "has been addressed elsewhere". This is more vague both as to timeline and as to whether or not the other question already has answers, which means it applies accurately to a broader of range of closureworthy questions; yet it is clear enough.
- ---
- I'm marking this a [bug](/categories/3/tags/394) because the current implementation is inaccurate or misleading.
#3: Post edited
by
msh210
·
2020-08-23T13:06:59Z (over 4 years ago)
- The question post ["Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel"](/questions/276642) is closed as a duplicate of the later ["Second Iteration of Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel"](/questions/277346) and has a notice on it:
- > **closed** as duplicate by luap42 on Aug 18, 2020 at 15:55
- >
- > This question has been answered before. See: [Second Iteration of Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel](/questions/277346)
To my mind, at least, "before" sounds like the "Second Iteration of Drafting" question was answered before the "Drafting" question was asked. Or at least that it was answered before the "Drafting" question was closed. Neither of those is true.- I think the notice should say not "has been answered before" but "has been addressed elsewhere". This is more vague both as to timeline and as to whether or not the other question already has answers, which means it applies accurately to a broader of range of closureworthy questions; yet it is clear enough.
- ---
- I'm marking this a [bug](/categories/3/tags/394) because the current implementation is inaccurate or misleading.
- The question post ["Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel"](/questions/276642) is closed as a duplicate of the later ["Second Iteration of Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel"](/questions/277346) and has a notice on it:
- > **closed** as duplicate by luap42 on Aug 18, 2020 at 15:55
- >
- > This question has been answered before. See: [Second Iteration of Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel](/questions/277346)
- To my mind, at least, "before" sounds like the "Second Iteration of Drafting" question was answered before the "Drafting" question was asked. Or at the very least that it was answered before the "Drafting" question was closed. Neither of those is true.
- I think the notice should say not "has been answered before" but "has been addressed elsewhere". This is more vague both as to timeline and as to whether or not the other question already has answers, which means it applies accurately to a broader of range of closureworthy questions; yet it is clear enough.
- ---
- I'm marking this a [bug](/categories/3/tags/394) because the current implementation is inaccurate or misleading.
#2: Post edited
by
msh210
·
2020-08-23T13:02:39Z (over 4 years ago)
clearer
- The question post ["Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel"](/questions/276642) is closed as a duplicate of the later ["Second Iteration of Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel"](/questions/277346) and has a notice on it:
- > **closed** as duplicate by luap42 on Aug 18, 2020 at 15:55
- >
- > This question has been answered before. See: [Second Iteration of Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel](/questions/277346)
To my mind, at least, "before" sounds like the "Second Iteration of Drafting" question was answered before the "Drafting" question was asked. Or at least that it was answered before the "Drafting" question was closed. Neither of those is true. I think the notice should say not "has been answered before" but "has been addressed elsewhere". This is more vague both as to timeline and as to whether or not the other question already has answers, which means it applies accurately to a broader of range of closureworthy questions; yet it is clear enough.- ---
- I'm marking this a [bug](/categories/3/tags/394) because the current implementation is inaccurate or misleading.
- The question post ["Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel"](/questions/276642) is closed as a duplicate of the later ["Second Iteration of Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel"](/questions/277346) and has a notice on it:
- > **closed** as duplicate by luap42 on Aug 18, 2020 at 15:55
- >
- > This question has been answered before. See: [Second Iteration of Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel](/questions/277346)
- To my mind, at least, "before" sounds like the "Second Iteration of Drafting" question was answered before the "Drafting" question was asked. Or at least that it was answered before the "Drafting" question was closed. Neither of those is true.
- I think the notice should say not "has been answered before" but "has been addressed elsewhere". This is more vague both as to timeline and as to whether or not the other question already has answers, which means it applies accurately to a broader of range of closureworthy questions; yet it is clear enough.
- ---
- I'm marking this a [bug](/categories/3/tags/394) because the current implementation is inaccurate or misleading.
#1: Initial revision
by
msh210
·
2020-08-23T13:01:58Z (over 4 years ago)
closure-as-duplicate post notice is inaccurate
The question post ["Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel"](/questions/276642) is closed as a duplicate of the later ["Second Iteration of Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel"](/questions/277346) and has a notice on it: > **closed** as duplicate by luap42 on Aug 18, 2020 at 15:55 > > This question has been answered before. See: [Second Iteration of Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel](/questions/277346) To my mind, at least, "before" sounds like the "Second Iteration of Drafting" question was answered before the "Drafting" question was asked. Or at least that it was answered before the "Drafting" question was closed. Neither of those is true. I think the notice should say not "has been answered before" but "has been addressed elsewhere". This is more vague both as to timeline and as to whether or not the other question already has answers, which means it applies accurately to a broader of range of closureworthy questions; yet it is clear enough. --- I'm marking this a [bug](/categories/3/tags/394) because the current implementation is inaccurate or misleading.