1

I just noticed that there is a question about cross-platform play of Civilization between Xbox and PC. It can be found here:

Are the Xbox and computer versions of Civilization: Revolution compatible?

The original question asks whether or not Civ 5 can be played between PC and Xbox. The main answer says that there is no Civ 5 for the Xbox, but then expands on the topic by talking about the Civ game that is available on Xbox, Civilization: Revolutions.

The answerer also discusses that either way, there is little chance that the games can be played together even if both players are playing Civ: Rev or Civ 5 between PC and Xbox.

The Questioner made a mistake and meant to say Civ: Rev and edited the question a day later after the answer had already gathered steam. Through context clues, you can understand what has happened.

Consider, what if the question had been something much less construable like:

"Can players play Final Fantasy XI across Xbox and PS3?"

However, the questioner meant to say:

"Can players play Final Fantasy XIV across Xbox and PS3?"

The answer to the original question is yes since there was a PC/360/PS3 version of FFXI. However, after realizing the mistake and changing the question to XIV, the answer is now no since there is not 360 version of XIV.

I feel like the correct way to deal with this situation is to revert the question and if the questioner still needs additional answers, create a new question. Is this the right response?

  • 4
    It's rarely (if ever) appropriate to revert edits made by an asker. And I also don't feel that askers should have to ask a new question when they make a mistake (otherwise, why would the edit function exist at all?). – Unionhawk Mar 18 '14 at 23:00
  • alerting the person who made an answer pre-edit might be a good idea though, so they can update their answer, or remove it if they don't know the ansdwer to the modified question. – Arperum Mar 19 '14 at 1:11
6

If there's a mistake or a misunderstanding in a question that causes issues with answers, generally my preferred course of action (and what happened in this case) is to leave a comment on the answer saying the question has been updated.

In these cases, I don't really see the need to ask a whole new question.

In fact, this is the way putting questions "on hold" works, in the ideal case. The question is off-topic or unclear, and it is (hopefully) edited to make it more on-topic or add detail. If an answer exists before the hold occurs, and the question is then edited, the answer may need editing (or in extreme cases, deletion).

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .