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

This question already has an answer here:

Apparently I can't post a question which refers to an earlier question, links to a couple of separate jsfiddle scenarios, and is illustrated, without adding code.

Error is "you can't link to jsfiddle without adding code".

So I've added a pointless bit of code.

I can understand the point is to stop people posting brief answers which link to jsfiddle, with no context.

But in my case the code is a distraction.

Shouldn't questions which link to jsfiddle be excused the code requirement (especially if theyshow their effort in other ways)?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by JDB, Emrakul, Hugo Dozois, gnat, Martijn Pieters Oct 7 '13 at 22:25

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

Why have you posted a link to jsfiddle at all? If the code it contains isn't important to the question? Or if it is important then it should be in the question – Richard Tingle Oct 7 '13 at 15:39
@RichardTingle wouldn't the reader like the links to jsfiddle as part of context rather than having to find his own way there via the earlier question? just a thought. yes, i could take the links out, i suppose. i don't think that improves the question though. – hawbsl Oct 7 '13 at 15:44
Just as the code from the fiddle is important to the question, the inverse also applies: if the code is a distraction, then so is your fiddle. – BoltClock's a Unicorn Oct 7 '13 at 16:14
-1 "So I've added a pointless bit of code." - You intentionally circumvented a restriction which was put in place to maintain the quality of the site (I suppose because you think your question is special-er than all the others). Rather than investigating why this restriction was put in place, you simply complained about it on Meta. – JDB Oct 7 '13 at 21:18
@Cybȫʁgϟ37 excuse me for writing a question that explained itself, was spelt correctly and took 10 minutes to setup. i forgot that stackoverflow is overloaded with such questions. – hawbsl Oct 8 '13 at 9:16
@BoltClock'saUnicorn i'll rethink it then as you could be right. – hawbsl Oct 8 '13 at 9:16
@BoltClock'saUnicorn i've it's on hold nevertheless i've edited it accordingly – hawbsl Oct 8 '13 at 9:32
@hawbsl - I downvoted this question for the given reasons. After your edits, I've voted to reopen your original question (as have 2 others - 2 more to go). – JDB Oct 8 '13 at 13:33
@Cybȫʁgϟ37 cheers – hawbsl Oct 8 '13 at 13:49
up vote 4 down vote accepted

At times services like jsfiddle can be offline, or even permanently disabled. Without including the code for the solution, the entire context could be lost in these situations.

It is best to not only include the link as a demo, but also the content that the link contains so that visitors are not forced to navigate to view the solution. An explanation will also benefit other users, and the demo will supplement this explanation.

With your specific instance, it would be very hard to reproduce the issue without the jsfiddle links. Evidence of this can be seen from the answers, which have specific css examples in response to the jsfiddle demo you provide.

Stackoverflow is codecentric, and as such code will almost always dominate an image as an example (especially in this situation since there are multiple ways to build layout using html/css).

share|improve this answer
Another issue not often discussed is that some users behind company firewalls, myself included, cannot access jsfiddle at all. – JDB Oct 7 '13 at 21:19
@Cybȫʁgϟ37 - I had not come across users blocking jsfiddle before, but that is a good point. – Travis J Oct 7 '13 at 21:34

Posts should be self-containing.

Put all the necessary info in your post. Links can break and services can be down. Don't rely on it.

We want all posts being useful to future visitors as well and not just for the moment.

share|improve this answer
In fact, it's even more important for questions than it is for answers - if you can't verify an answer, that's OK, it's just one answer. If you can't see what's happening in a question, then the whole question is unanswerable and subject to closure. – BoltClock's a Unicorn Oct 7 '13 at 16:34

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