So, I wonder why the question I replied to in Ask FT that had a valid link got reviewed and changed. And, how did a two year old that was just changed by the cleaning crew manage to get 4 votes the day it was changed? Are the cleaners accessing a list of their work to vote for each other? http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question137766.html
I'm not claiming the new answer is wrong or that mine is better but I just want to point out that the question asked about gemstones and the answers other than mine cite data for what is called Precious gems. Gemstones include more than diamonds, emeralds, rubies and sapphires. Gemstones include all the rocks dug out and are capable of being used for decorative purposes like Lapis Lazuli, Jade, Amber, Aquamarine, Quartz and Amethyst. So my input originally sought to iron that point and make people aware that there are artifacts made from gemstones that weigh multiple tons and not just the few hundred pounds of the precious gems cited in the other answers. Also worthy of a ponder is that the new entry of the Bahia Emerald is already posted in the link shared by Walneto, so why is the new post necessary?. Wasn't Walneto's link examined?
I just can't figure why this Q&A got into the 'needs cleaning' set of question numbers? Except I'd have expected an editor who read the replies and was fixing things to have undone my typo of 'yr5s'.
Then I noted the 2 new links. One is from Wikipedia, which should remain fairly unchanged and accessible for many years to come. Also, it being a dot org (.org) it does not allow posting of new content without scrupulous examination and review, affording a virtually malware free entry. Contrast that to the other new link provided in the new post from a dot com (.com). There we will find advertisement style sheets and those are known to be the sources of malware intrusion into sites. But beyond that, it is a commercial site and those only offer free access to current product info. Those sites also have little or no possibility to refute the published claim. Either there is no comment section or comments are restricted to subscribers. In a couple of months, that site might archive the linked article and then restrict access only to subscribers. I see this as putting a dust bunny under the bed that will show as more dirt that needs to be cleaned in a couple of months.
I did not want to say anything to upset the boat about this clean up effort. But I think I had to come and suggest that possibly you limit new links to dot orgs (.orgs). Even though a dot com may be clean now, when someone goes to the question in two years, a dot com could be archived, gone or infected. Meaning, using the question linked above as an example, what was a valid but not perfect set of replies now has a worm growing in it and future cleaning will be needed.
4 votes on the day of cleaning? And you have to search to find the original question. It's not one of the ones in the New list that most people go to and I doubt 5 people (cleaner plus 4 voters) came up with wondering about the largest gemstone in less than a day. The vote data is being skewed in other words by the very cleaning intended to fix the problems. I appreciate the effort to improve Ask FT but I wonder if this isn't just swapping one problem for another, like what happened with the States/Nations Trivia database. I'd hate to see Ask FT scrapped like the States/Nations was. I hope you've captured an image of the Ask FT from before this work began in case you decide to go back to what was there and just put new restrictions to new replies in place to go forward with a better product. Rant over
PS, not a rant, just clearing my throat:
When someone comes here and finds a reply that has a link that reports URL not found, or some such linkage, the person who is looking for an answer to their question still has the data that the original responder offered, only the link is gone. Left in that situation, wouldn't the searcher use the data from here to find further information? Add a caveat that some links may be lost but the information as posted was found to be valid at the time it was posted. And ask that if that situation is encountered to then add any new links found for that answer (not new answers - they can come through your "Incorrect data" system already in place).