Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

Return to Answer

replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

My first reaction was "Vote up posts with code and vote down those without", as in including a comment of "+1/[-1] for [not] including source", but for those questions where its the askers first question or the asker never returns or doesn't respond, there isn't much 'encouragement' - and maybe for those there never will be.

I see this in two parts,

  1. is up/down voting enough encouragement/discouragement to include code
  2. If the answer to #1 is 'no', do we need a structural change like @skinnyTOD linkedlinked,

My first reaction was "Vote up posts with code and vote down those without", as in including a comment of "+1/[-1] for [not] including source", but for those questions where its the askers first question or the asker never returns or doesn't respond, there isn't much 'encouragement' - and maybe for those there never will be.

I see this in two parts,

  1. is up/down voting enough encouragement/discouragement to include code
  2. If the answer to #1 is 'no', do we need a structural change like @skinnyTOD linked,

My first reaction was "Vote up posts with code and vote down those without", as in including a comment of "+1/[-1] for [not] including source", but for those questions where its the askers first question or the asker never returns or doesn't respond, there isn't much 'encouragement' - and maybe for those there never will be.

I see this in two parts,

  1. is up/down voting enough encouragement/discouragement to include code
  2. If the answer to #1 is 'no', do we need a structural change like @skinnyTOD linked,
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

My first reaction was "Vote up posts with code and vote down those without", as in including a comment of "+1/[-1] for [not] including source", but for those questions where its the askers first question or the asker never returns or doesn't respond, there isn't much 'encouragement' - and maybe for those there never will be.

I see this in two parts,

  1. is up/down voting enough encouragement/discouragement to include code
  2. If the answer to #1 is 'no', do we need a structural change like @skinnyTOD linkedlinked,

My first reaction was "Vote up posts with code and vote down those without", as in including a comment of "+1/[-1] for [not] including source", but for those questions where its the askers first question or the asker never returns or doesn't respond, there isn't much 'encouragement' - and maybe for those there never will be.

I see this in two parts,

  1. is up/down voting enough encouragement/discouragement to include code
  2. If the answer to #1 is 'no', do we need a structural change like @skinnyTOD linked,

My first reaction was "Vote up posts with code and vote down those without", as in including a comment of "+1/[-1] for [not] including source", but for those questions where its the askers first question or the asker never returns or doesn't respond, there isn't much 'encouragement' - and maybe for those there never will be.

I see this in two parts,

  1. is up/down voting enough encouragement/discouragement to include code
  2. If the answer to #1 is 'no', do we need a structural change like @skinnyTOD linked,
Source Link
Kelly S. French
Kelly S. French
  • 1.1k
  • 8
  • 15

My first reaction was "Vote up posts with code and vote down those without", as in including a comment of "+1/[-1] for [not] including source", but for those questions where its the askers first question or the asker never returns or doesn't respond, there isn't much 'encouragement' - and maybe for those there never will be.

I see this in two parts,

  1. is up/down voting enough encouragement/discouragement to include code
  2. If the answer to #1 is 'no', do we need a structural change like @skinnyTOD linked,