koobas.hobune.stream
When rejecting an answer, adding a reason as comment bumps the question
I tried to reject some answers that were added to very old questions and added a comment to that answer to let the author know about it, but that lead to the question being bumped.
Am I missing something? Is there another function for this? Or shouldn't a mod comment when rejecting answers in general?
I have read the guidelines, but they just say that I should add a comment. Rejecting an answer to not let someone bump a thread and then bump it myself through a comment is pretty stupid. ^-^
EDIT: I also tried changing the comment visibility to "original poster and moderators", but that did not change anything.
Yeah, that's been around for a while. The Recent-Changes tab doesn't take into account deletion/rejection. It's slightly offset by it being a pain to add rejection comments in the first place (the old system let you comment and reject directly from the $$anonymous$$oderation Queue.) And I don't think there's even an official policy on whether me-too/bumps are allowed.
I just reject w/o a comment Answers like "Nobody?" Then I leave the rest for, well, apparently, you.
Thank you!
At least now I know that I didn't fail to use the system correctly. In the meantime I have seen other (senior) mods bumping old questions with reject comments as well, so...
Bumping is just clutter. Its unnecessary and shows self-importance.
If a user needs to bump a question its a general indicator of a bad or otherwise unanswerable question.
The way to bump this is to edit the question to add more info.
I don't leave comments when I reject nonsense like 'bump' and 'me too'. That'd be me spending more time over the rejection than that user put in to the writing and submission. Not happening.
It's also hard to leave a useful comment if you can't cite anything. re ScaniX's comment: the $$anonymous$$oderator guidelines say you can answer old Qs. There's a paragraph about it, but I don't understand anything past "not necessarily always have to be rejected". Likewise rejecting me-to's and bumps - if you write "UA doesn't allow bumps" you're lying, and writing "there's no policy, but this is what I assume" seems non-helpful.
The way the system is now, rejecting low-OP-effect posts w/o comment may be better. I think they're more likely to have forgotten they even did it, or assume "the system" flagged it somehow. Sure, a drop-down with common reasons would be nice, but that's doubly non-achievable (no way to add a dropdown, no documented reasons to give.)
