<p><sup>↑ That ↑ is the question...(Sorry, couldn't resist.)</sup></p>

<p>I've flagged a couple comments as obsolete here, and had both flags declined. These comments were suggestions to correct errors in OPs, which were then fixed in editing. Specifically:</p>

<ol>
<li>The first comment <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/87099/is-there-any-way-the-adjusted-r2-might-decrease-by-adding-predictors#comment169921_87099">here</a>. "<em>R²</em>" was changed to "adjusted <em>R²</em>" in response to a corrective comment:

<blockquote>
  <p>i think you might be confusing {R-sq} and {adjusted R-sq} here.</p>
</blockquote></li>
<li><p>The last comment <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/88158/anova-terminology-repeated-measures-vs-within-between-subjects#comment172431_88158">here</a>. The clarification was copied into the body of the question, as suggested:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Please edit your question to elaborate it (not in a comment)</p>
</blockquote></li>
</ol>

<p>I inferred from this that CV doesn't want to delete such corrective comments even after corrections have been made, but I can't find actual discussion of any such unwritten rule, so here's a place for it. If I've inferred too much from two declined flags, I'll be happy to resume trying my luck on new cases as they arise...but I see these sorts of comments hanging around on quite a lot of old questions too.</p>

<p><sup><strong>Edit:</strong> For the record, I just flagged a third comment as obsolete (a request to edit in data, which was done), and had it marked helpful. This weakens my statistical evidence against the null hypothesis of no difference in policies between CV and SE in general. (Of course, it was extremely weak in the first place.)</sup></p>

<p>I'm fine with leaving corrective comments regarding resolved errors if that's how we want to do it here, but that would appear to be idiosyncratic policy, and should have an on-record decision here on the meta-site if we want to go against the network-wide grain. In personal experience, I have flagged comments as obsolete on <a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/">Cognitive Sciences</a> and had them removed. On <a href="https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/">Math Educators</a>, I found a useful meta-question (that actually inspired this one): "<a href="https://matheducators.meta.stackexchange.com/q/288/394">Do we want to delete “obsolete” comments on this site?</a>" Its accepted answer (<strong>"Yes."</strong>) also links to some useful questions on Meta Stack Exchange:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/77373/246931">Should moderators delete obsolete and resolved comment threads?</a> (Some actual debate here.)</li>
<li><a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/156127/246931">Is it OK to casually flag comments as obsolete?</a> (Pretty one-sided here: "Flag away!")</li>
</ul>

<p>Should CV have its own policy? If so, what should local policy be on comments like those I've linked?<br>
If they're not obsolete enough to delete, what clearly would be? And where should we draw the line?</p>
