Timeline for Are questions that can be answered by Googling off-topic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:29 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:16 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Nov 25, 2016 at 12:07 | comment | added | MCW Mod | In theory yes. In practice no. When I find a question that looks trivial, I copy and paste into google. If the answer is in the first page of results, I VtC as trivial. If not, I leave it open. We have many good questions where OP lacks the context to identify the answer, or has an erroneous assumption, and many where google simply cannot answer. | |
| Nov 25, 2016 at 10:13 | comment | added | roberrrt-s | 'A' problem of the subject history is that we can assume that nearly everything is 'google-able'. I personally browse this SE because: 1.) I like history. 2.) People here tend to give a really comprehensive analysis of the question, backed up by sources and conclude the best possible answer, see history.stackexchange.com/questions/33708/… for example. | |
| Nov 7, 2016 at 20:21 | history | answered | MCWMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |