Return to Answer

While it's true that the vast majority of questions that I close under "Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem," or "Problems with code must include a description of code that reproduces the problem and a description of the problem," those are not the real reasons why I actually close such questions.

Questions looking for code, or questions looking for a solution to a problem, aren't the real difficulties we have with the front page of SO. The real difficulties we have with the front page of SO are vague, underspecified, unanswerable questions with atrocious spelling and grammar, copy/pastes of homework assignments, and so forth. The Eternal September, in other words. The new close reasons work so well because such questions are almost always absent the elements that we now require.

Here's the catch. Occasionally, someone posts a question who clearly understands what he is doing, states the problem clearly and succinctly, and asks a question that is definitively answerable and not an obvious duplicate. It's not a highly-obscure problem, nor is it something that requires a lengthy explanation to answer. But the OP has not posted his half-assed, broken code with the question.

Why would we close such questions? Isn't the point of Stack Overflow to serve as a repository for problems and solutions that are broadly applicable to programmers? Isn't it true that these kinds of questions, even though they might violate the letter of the law, certainly don't violate its spirit? Aren't these the kinds of questions that we want to see here? The kind that will attract genuinely good answers instead of attempting to fix broken code?

The question you have to ask yourself when you encounter a question like this during an audit, is this: Does the question actively harm the site if it remains here? I think the answer in this particular audit is clear.

While it's true that the vast majority of questions that I close under "Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem," or "Problems with code must include a description of code that reproduces the problem and a description of the problem," those are not the real reasons why I actually close such questions.

Questions looking for code, or questions looking for a solution to a problem, aren't the real difficulties we have with the front page of SO. Rather, it's the vague, under-specified, unanswerable questions with atrocious spelling and grammar, copy/pastes of homework assignments, and so forth. The Eternal September, in other words. The new close reasons work so well because those questions are almost always absent the elements that we now require.

Here's the catch. Occasionally, someone posts a question who clearly understands what he is doing, states the problem clearly and succinctly, and asks a question that is definitively answerable and not an obvious duplicate. It's not a highly-obscure problem, nor is it something that requires a lengthy explanation to answer. But the OP has not posted his half-assed, broken code with the question.

Why would we close such questions? Isn't the point of Stack Overflow to serve as a repository for problems and solutions that are broadly applicable to programmers? Isn't it true that these kinds of questions, even though they might violate the letter of the law, certainly don't violate its spirit? Aren't these the kinds of questions that we want to see here? The kind that will attract genuinely good answers instead of attempting to fix broken code?

The question you have to ask yourself when you encounter a question like this during an audit, is this: Does the question actively harm the site if it remains here? I think the answer in this particular audit is clear.

While it's true that the vast majority of questions that I close under "Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem," or "Problems with code must include a description of code that reproduces the problem and a description of the problem," those are not the real reasons why I actually close such questions.

Questions looking for code, or questions looking for a solution to a problem, aren't the real difficulties we have with the front page of SO. The real difficulties we have with the front page of SO are vague, underspecified, unanswerable questions with atrocious spelling and grammar, copy/pastes of homework assignments, and so forth. The Eternal September, in other words. The new close reasons work so well because such questions are almost always absent the elements that we now require.

Here's the catch. Occasionally, someone posts a question who clearly understands what he is doing, states the problem clearly and succinctly, and asks a question that is definitively answerable and not an obvious duplicate. It's not a highly-obscure problem, nor is it something that requires a lengthy explanation to answer. But the OP has not posted his half-assed, borken code with the question.

Why would we close such questions? Isn't the point of Stack Overflow to serve as a repository for problems and solutions that are broadly applicable to programmers? Isn't it true that these kinds of questions, even though they might violate the letter of the law, certainly don't violate its spirit? Aren't these the kinds of questions that we want to see here? The kind that will attract genuinely good answers instead of attempting to fix borken code?

The question you have to ask yourself when you encounter a question like this during an audit, is this: Does the question actively harm the site if it remains here? I think the answer in this particular audit is clear.

While it's true that the vast majority of questions that I close under "Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem," or "Problems with code must include a description of code that reproduces the problem and a description of the problem," those are not the real reasons why I actually close such questions.

Questions looking for code, or questions looking for a solution to a problem, aren't the real difficulties we have with the front page of SO. The real difficulties we have with the front page of SO are vague, underspecified, unanswerable questions with atrocious spelling and grammar, copy/pastes of homework assignments, and so forth. The Eternal September, in other words. The new close reasons work so well because such questions are almost always absent the elements that we now require.

Here's the catch. Occasionally, someone posts a question who clearly understands what he is doing, states the problem clearly and succinctly, and asks a question that is definitively answerable and not an obvious duplicate. It's not a highly-obscure problem, nor is it something that requires a lengthy explanation to answer. But the OP has not posted his half-assed, broken code with the question.

Why would we close such questions? Isn't the point of Stack Overflow to serve as a repository for problems and solutions that are broadly applicable to programmers? Isn't it true that these kinds of questions, even though they might violate the letter of the law, certainly don't violate its spirit? Aren't these the kinds of questions that we want to see here? The kind that will attract genuinely good answers instead of attempting to fix broken code?

The question you have to ask yourself when you encounter a question like this during an audit, is this: Does the question actively harm the site if it remains here? I think the answer in this particular audit is clear.

While it's true that the vast majority of questions that I close under "Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal knowledge of the problem," or "Problems with code must include a description of code that reproduces the problem and a description of the problem," those are not the real reasons why I actually close such questions.

Questions looking for code, or questions looking for a solution to a problem, aren't the real difficulties we have with the front page of SO. The real difficulties we have with the front page of SO are vague, underspecified, unanswerable questions with atrocious spelling and grammar, copy/pastes of homework assignments, and so forth. The Eternal September, in other words. The new close reasons work so well because such questions are almost always absent the elements that we now require.

Here's the catch. Occasionally, someone posts a question who clearly understands what he is doing, states the problem clearly and succinctly, and asks a question that is definitively answerable and not an obvious duplicate. It's not a highly-obscure problem, nor is it something that requires a lengthy explanation to answer. But still, the OP has not posted his half-assed, borken code with the question.

Why would we close such questions? Isn't the point of Stack Overflow to serve as a repository for problems and solutions that are broadly applicable to programmers? Isn't it true that these kinds of questions, even though they might violate the letter of the law, certainly don't violate its spirit? Aren't these the kinds of questions that we want to see here? The kind that will attract genuinely good answers instead of attempting to fix borken code?

The question you have to ask yourself when you encounter a question like this during an audit, is this: Does the question actively harm the site if it remains here? I think the answer in this particular audit is clear.

While it's true that the vast majority of questions that I close under "Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem," or "Problems with code must include a description of code that reproduces the problem and a description of the problem," those are not the real reasons why I actually close such questions.

Questions looking for code, or questions looking for a solution to a problem, aren't the real difficulties we have with the front page of SO. The real difficulties we have with the front page of SO are vague, underspecified, unanswerable questions with atrocious spelling and grammar, copy/pastes of homework assignments, and so forth. The Eternal September, in other words. The new close reasons work so well because such questions are almost always absent the elements that we now require.

Here's the catch. Occasionally, someone posts a question who clearly understands what he is doing, states the problem clearly and succinctly, and asks a question that is definitively answerable and not an obvious duplicate. It's not a highly-obscure problem, nor is it something that requires a lengthy explanation to answer. But the OP has not posted his half-assed, borken code with the question.

Why would we close such questions? Isn't the point of Stack Overflow to serve as a repository for problems and solutions that are broadly applicable to programmers? Isn't it true that these kinds of questions, even though they might violate the letter of the law, certainly don't violate its spirit? Aren't these the kinds of questions that we want to see here? The kind that will attract genuinely good answers instead of attempting to fix borken code?

The question you have to ask yourself when you encounter a question like this during an audit, is this: Does the question actively harm the site if it remains here? I think the answer in this particular audit is clear.