Timeline for Check my proof at a remote link considered harmful
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:21 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 9, 2014 at 0:36 | vote | accept | hardmath | ||
| Sep 8, 2014 at 2:44 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackMath/status/508808182639362048 | ||
| Sep 5, 2014 at 13:08 | history | edited | hardmath | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
updated as to current status of example post
|
| Sep 5, 2014 at 13:05 | answer | added | GEdgar | timeline score: 5 | |
| Sep 5, 2014 at 4:58 | comment | added | hrkrshnn | Here is a link that discusses whether you can get infected by clicking a link. (Beware of clicking!) | |
| Sep 5, 2014 at 2:31 | comment | added | apnorton | And that "someone interested" can risk their computer getting a virus from an unknown site, thank you very much. ;) I don't just follow through whatever link someone gives. | |
| Sep 4, 2014 at 21:54 | comment | added | Jonas Meyer | $\ldots$ then someone interested might want to edit the post for them. | |
| Sep 4, 2014 at 19:46 | comment | added | André Nicolas | I agree that something has to be done. Occasionally, there is good reason for a question to be essentially link only. But if examination shows that posting the question explicitly is feasible, then OP should be asked to do so. If after a reasonable amount of time (a day?) this has not been done, that could be reason for putting the question on hold. But then again, if the question is interesting, $\dots$. | |
| Sep 4, 2014 at 19:12 | answer | added | user642796Mod | timeline score: 16 | |
| Sep 4, 2014 at 17:06 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | Screw copyright issues (which are still a problem), the real issue is link rot. Any link you wouldn't put in a paper bibliography is automatically an issue. | |
| Sep 4, 2014 at 16:16 | history | asked | hardmath | CC BY-SA 3.0 |