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

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 .