4

I looked at this question not long after it had been asked and it had already been put "on hold". There were no answers.

However, sometime later I happened open the question again, but now there was an answer! Checking the timestamps of the answer ("2017-07-31 16:52:42Z") and when the question was closed ("2017-07-31 16:35:57Z") does appear to show that the answer was indeed posted after the question was closed - some 17 minutes after - how is this possible?!

  • 1
    I don't know how it could happen, but the question's admin timeline that is available to moderators appears to confirm that it was closed and then answered. – Stephen Ostermiller Jul 31 '17 at 22:02
5

From Meta:

We give people a server side grace period to answer questions, even if the question gets closed.

If the client side checks fail, for whatever reason, and someone does post an answer, we will accept it (for a while).

and:

If a question is closed while you're answering on the full version of the site, you will receive a notification that the question was closed and the 'Post Your Answer' button will be disabled. However, this is only a client-side restriction, so it is possible in some cases that this process fails.

When it does, the backend allows for a grace period of around four hours (previously there was no time limit). Presumably the client-side restriction did fail in this case, and since the answer was "in-flight", as Jeff describes it, the server accepted it despite the question already having been closed.

For users answering from a mobile device, there's no client-side restriction in place to begin with, so this situation is presumably even easier to create when using the mobile version of the site.

As a side note, this apparently even works for questions closed due to migration.

  • Ah haa - thanks! And that answer was posted just over an hour after the question was asked - well within the 4 hour limit! "For users answering from a mobile device, there's no client-side restriction in place" - since that was answered over 6 years ago, do you know if that is still the case? Presumably this is refering to the mobile website, rather than the mobile app? Since, the Android/iOS (official) apps haven't been around that long - or is this something which has been carried through to a "feature" of the mobile apps as well? – DocRoot Jul 31 '17 at 23:01
  • To be honest I'm not sure. But based on the phrasing, "mobile version of the site" I'm guessing this applies to the website. But I wouldn't be 100% confident in saying that. – John Conde Aug 1 '17 at 1:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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