Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

I'm all for making users aware of JSFiddle and discouraging posts/answers that just have "here's a JSFiddle," but I've already run into a number of times where I've attempted to use it as an additional resource, but SO refuses to let me submit the post, because it detects a fiddle link and I don't have code in my post.

My prime example is my answer here, where I used the Fiddle as a reference "here's a public running version for others to reference and verify" (and I wasn't the only one with that train of thought) and putting the code in the answer would be redundant.

Perhaps there should be a way to tell the system "yes, I understand, post anyway"? I wouldn't even be opposed to it being tied to reputation. Maybe 1,000 unlocks it? Enough that new users still have to follow it, but more veteran users, who have contributed more and therefore should be better able to judge whether their question/answer is appropriate for the site as-is, can choose to dismiss the warning.

share|improve this question
I want to see code in that or any answer, personally. Once you force me click out, I think the quality proposition goes out the window. – casperOne Nov 9 '12 at 18:45
If the code is important to answer the question, it should be posted in the answer. If it's not important, the jsfiddle isn't necessary. – Andrew Barber Nov 9 '12 at 18:45
Is the JSFiddle link even relevant there? You just posted the code from the question. Your explanation/answer is fine without code, I just don't think it really needs the fiddle link either. If you had changed anything you could post the relevant lines of code. – Bill the Lizard Nov 9 '12 at 18:46
just my 2 pence: jsfiddle might go down one day, suffer a database outage or even get sold. if that happened, suddenly a bunch of answers that rely on it are no longer answers, just broken links with 'this works' written next to them. code in answers means that the only dependancy for that answer is SO, which somewhat helps the idea that the question will be helpful for those in the future. – jammypeach Nov 9 '12 at 19:12
@jammypeach - As I said, I have nothing against blocking answers that are just "this works, [link to jsfiddle]". However, I don't agree on the premise of "if you don't post your code in the SO post, then it's not needed at all". Half the point of JSF is to have code that can be run in the browser, which SO doesn't have. – Shauna Nov 9 '12 at 19:57
@Shauna No, it doesn't have that, but the idea is to have answers be self-contained on SO. If all of the code is in a Fiddle, then the information here by definition is incomplete and that's not acceptable. Ideally, you put the pertinent information here, while putting the complete example in the fiddle. Note that there aren't many programming technologies on SO that have places online where you can have a complete interactive example hosted. I don't have an online .NET environment to run the code from my answers in, and yet, they do just fine, as to the others. – casperOne Nov 9 '12 at 20:22
@casperOne - You mean isn't good enough? – Shauna Nov 9 '12 at 20:37
In addition to the "yes, understood, post anyway" the system could also add -2 to the answer that clicks through – random Nov 9 '12 at 21:07
@Shauna How am I supposed to run any code that doesn't output to a console, accesses a database, etc.? In other words, pretty much most applications. – casperOne Nov 9 '12 at 21:21
@casperOne - And there's the difference between HTML/CSS issues and other application issues. HTML/CSS issues roughly equate to logic errors. The system doesn't actually spit out any errors, but the "logic" is wrong. Since you have to post the code anyway, in those situations, it's often more efficient to post it in jsFiddle than it is to post an image and a static block of code (requiring the answerers to then go to jsFiddle, anyway). – Shauna Nov 9 '12 at 21:41
@Shauna You're missing the point; if the post doesn't have all of the salient details posted on the page, then there are severe quality issues with the post. If you must click off the page to get full comprehension of the post, then the post is by definition low quality and should be deleted. The post must have enough information to stand on it's own without the link. – casperOne Nov 9 '12 at 21:43
@random - Eh, I think that would be a bit harsh, unless there was some kind of threshold to mitigate false positives. It seems counterproductive to dock someone with a well thought out answer that uses a fiddle as a visual aid, solely because the writer deemed copying the code into a static location was overkill. – Shauna Nov 9 '12 at 21:43
As a "jsFiddle guy" I'm all for adding code to the question. We will add JSONP to our "show_part API" and then please simply add [include code] button next to the "You've got no code" message. – zalun Nov 13 '12 at 17:23

Using a resource like jsFiddle as an additional reference is where you preface it with something along the lines of, "and here's a live preview of the code in action".

It does not mean, "and here is the code".

Posts are to be self-contained and only rely on external links as citations, or references for people to go further in their understanding. Off-site is where the redundancy happens. Not on the answer or question.

An external link should never replace actual on-page content.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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