Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

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

77%
+5 −0
Q&A closure-as-duplicate post notice is inaccurate

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...

2 answers  ·  posted 3y ago by msh210‭  ·  edited 3y ago by Monica Cellio‭

#5: Post edited by user avatar Monica Cellio‭ · 2021-03-21T02:27:54Z (about 3 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 user avatar msh210‭ · 2020-08-23T13:07:47Z (over 3 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 user avatar msh210‭ · 2020-08-23T13:06:59Z (over 3 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 user avatar msh210‭ · 2020-08-23T13:02:39Z (over 3 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 user avatar msh210‭ · 2020-08-23T13:01:58Z (over 3 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.