Timeline for DNA Surprise Questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 11, 2021 at 23:48 | history | edited | PolyGeoMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 197 characters in body
|
| Jan 18, 2019 at 11:02 | history | edited | PolyGeoMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Jan 18, 2019 at 11:01 | comment | added | user6485 | So am I, but not for it to be swamped with duplicates that aren't marked as duplicates especially as @Cyn says the answers get very repetitive. | |
| Jan 18, 2019 at 11:00 | comment | added | PolyGeo Mod | @ColeValleyGirl my comment there was in relation to site safety from closure (although that has never to my knowledge been considered for G&FH SE) whereas my comment here mentions site graduation. When the case for duplicates is strong I vote to close as duplicates. My point here is that I'm happy to see DNA questions broadening our potential community. | |
| Jan 18, 2019 at 9:57 | comment | added | user6485 | I completely disagree that we should allow duplicates to artificially increase our -- we're not at risk of closure, so what purpose does it serve? genealogy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2029/… is relevant especially the comment of somebody called PolyGeo: "we now have more freedom to maintain/raise the bar on question quality rather than needing to further assess how far we should lower it" | |
| Jan 18, 2019 at 0:55 | history | answered | PolyGeoMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |