What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

The question: Where i did the error? (Php + soap with ws-*)

The first revision is a code dump, but formatted ... oddly, with newlines inserted at strategic places. It's as if the user was trying to manually wrap his code at the question border. How bizarre.

The user had no rep prior to the question (only downvotes), and is still new to the site. It sounds like this question should have been caught by the code dump sniffer, but it wasn't for some reason. Maybe it was the lack of code formatting? If so, wouldn't the detection of unformatted code have caught it? Maybe the wacky newlines threw it off?

share|improve this question
1  
First revision: stackoverflow.com/revisions/8958019/1 looks like a regular question to the filter probably. –  chown Jan 22 '12 at 7:32
2  
So the actual question is why the "unformatted code" filter wasn't triggered when the question was posted. –  balpha Jan 22 '12 at 9:04
    
Indeed, I have updated my question to point out that one or the other, or both, failed here. –  Charles Jan 23 '12 at 6:39
1  
I would hate to have the job of the "code dump sniffer"...=) –  jadarnel27 Jan 23 '12 at 13:17

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Ultimately, it is a heuristic. Occasionally it will get it wrong; the question is: in which direction (too much blocked / too little blocked) do we want to be wrong? If we tweak it too hard to exclude the absolute craziest of input, we'll probably get more false positives than anything useful. The text as presented isn't even remotely markdown-esque, so it is already into a bit of a hit-n-miss territory.

Re your "should have been caught by the code dump sniffer" - that works on formatted code; in this case, it wasn't formatted. I'm really not sure that tweaking the unformatted code detection to deal with such a pathological corner-case is useful.

What is important is that obvious accidental bad usage is spotted and fixed as early as possible; this deals with the 95% case, without causing noticeable inconvenience (by false positives) to users who are getting it right.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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