Timeline for Are code questions without an attempt now on topic
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
67 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 24, 2014 at 14:01 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Jan 15, 2014 at 15:36 | comment | added | Duncan Jones | Can I just say... I've read the entire comment thread above. And while I feel uneasy at this changing world, I'm reassured that we have such a large group of articulate participants in this community who care so much. Never before have I read a thread and up-voted both sides of an argument in almost equal measure. I love this place. | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 16:28 | comment | added | Siddharth Rout | @Giles: I see that you are refusing to see my point so I rest my case and simply bow out of this conversation. :) | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 16:27 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @SiddharthRout I don't care. If you want to be sure that you aren't doing someone's homework, never answer a question on the Internet. | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 16:26 | comment | added | Siddharth Rout | @Gilles: So you are willing to do someone's homework? Cause I am not :) | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 16:25 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @SiddharthRout No, I do get your point. What you're trying to do is something different from, and fundamentally incompatible with, Stack Exchange. Stack Exchange puts heavy emphasis on answers being useful to future visitors: they're editable so that anyone can improve them, they can be voted on to give some indication of which answers are better, SE tries to make questions easily found in searches… All of this takes a lot of focus away from the asker. The asker just isn't that relevant after a while. And after a while is what SE is about. | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 16:20 | comment | added | Siddharth Rout | @Gilles: Not disputing that fact. However you are missing the point. Stack is not Freelancer.Com where you can request/order for code/solution. You "have" to show efforts and this is what I have seen in the last 2 years and is my point :) | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 16:16 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @SiddharthRout What Stack Overflow is about: “Stack Overflow is a question and answer site for professional and enthusiast programmers. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about programming.” (My emphasis) (Other SE sites have similar wording) That's why I participate. | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 16:13 | comment | added | Siddharth Rout |
@Gilles: With respect, I think you are mistaken. Stack is not about producing answers that are useful to everyone by providing a complete solution when there is lack of research/effort on OP's part. :) It is about helping user learn and in the process help future visitors. :) Please see my answer which I added.
|
|
| Jan 13, 2014 at 16:10 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @SiddharthRout Stack Exchange is about building a repository of answers. It's not about people jumping through hoops to get answers, it's about producing answers that are useful to everyone. In a way, the original person who asked the question is irrelevant — we hope that answers will benefit many others in the future. | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 16:08 | comment | added | Siddharth Rout | @Gilles: Not sure about you but I don't wanna give the answer on a plate. That is not what stackexchange is about (unless I am mistaken?) | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 16:07 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @SiddharthRout How does “Lack of Research” make a question unanswerable? | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 16:06 | comment | added | Siddharth Rout | @Gilles: Lack of Research. | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 16:05 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @SiddharthRout Looks answerable to me, so I don't see a reason to close it. If you want to close it, why? What do you think makes it unanswerable? (Note that in general, “many answers” is just one part of “too broad”, it also covers “answers would be too long”, but I don't see it here.) | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 9:14 | comment | added | Siddharth Rout |
How do you recon, we close THIS question? Unclear? Too Broad? IMHO none as it is absolutely clear to me what the OP wants and it doesn't have many answers.
|
|
| Jan 13, 2014 at 8:11 | comment | added | Shog9 | Watch the hyperbole, @Quantas. No one's endorsing poor-quality questions, and taking the time to answer a question that doesn't meet your standards doesn't automatically make someone a "rep whore". If it isn't obvious to you yet, closing is not the be-all, end-all solution to quality issues; I tend to think we've pushed it about as far as we can on SO, given the imbalance between folks asking questions and folks able to close them. | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 8:06 | comment | added | Shog9 | You're absolutely right, @joran: if the communities on Stack Overflow feel certain questions are inappropriate, it doesn't particularly matter what wording is in the close reasons. But an awful lot of folks are doing their best to learn what their community supports or doesn't support from the close reasons, and it is therefore not wise to keep misleading reasons around. | |
| Jan 11, 2014 at 17:25 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @Qantas94Heavy If someone wants to pander to help vampires, more power to them. I don't care. I downvote and don't answer. What I do care is that the questions whose answers are useful to me don't get closed. The point of a question isn't to help the asker, it's to help everybody who has the same question. | |
| Jan 11, 2014 at 11:06 | comment | added | Qantas 94 Heavy | So we are now officially endorsing poor quality questions? Help vampires don't care about whether or not their question gets downvoted to oblivion, all they care is that some medium to high-reputation user who is a rep whore swoops in and delivers them their solution on a silver plate. Is that really what we want to be? | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 18:26 | history | edited | user102937 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 7 characters in body
|
| Jan 10, 2014 at 17:14 | comment | added | joran | So I guess the issue here is that many folks want to be able to close low effort, answerable questions, and many other folks think that's a bad idea? :shrug: Changing the names of the close reasons isn't likely to resolve this. If a significant chunk of the community feels strongly that low effort, answerable questions should be closed, they will continue to do so using whatever close reason they think fits the best, I would guess. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 13:58 | comment | added | John Saunders | @Gilles: I wish I could downvote again. You have just forced me to create a "Words to Never Use" list, and to add ... that word to it. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 12:28 | comment | added | John Dvorak | @dystroy understood, thanks. It's a duplicate-enough / unclear strategy for me, then. Also, downvote for the lack of research. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 12:27 | comment | added | Denys Séguret | @JanDvorak For those ones I'm not picky when choosing a question which looks alike in the right part of the window so that I can vote to close... It's always close enough... | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 12:24 | comment | added | John Dvorak | @dystroy I'm more worried about those primitive regexes, however. "x or y, then a dash, then three alphabets [= letters]". Those tricky ones are not as bad, unless you mean the multiply duplicated "at least one lowercase letter, at least one uppercase letter, at least one digit, at least one symbol and between 10-15 characters in total". | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 12:19 | comment | added | Denys Séguret | @JanDvorak I'm a little not at ease with regexes question closing. Of course it's easy to find the elementary bricks but they keep being tricky and when they're not trivial the answer still has value. Problem is it rarely has reusable value... | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 12:15 | comment | added | John Dvorak | @dystroy so, who is there to found a "how to write a regex" question? It doesn't matter if it's too broad as long as it's self-answered. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 12:13 | comment | added | Denys Séguret | @JanDvorak I think that sometimes we don't need an exact duplicate, it's fine if OP still has to think a little. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 12:10 | comment | added | John Dvorak | What about give-me-teh-regex questions? Are we no longer supposed to close them? They are not too broad, they are sometimes not unclear, and they are rarely an exact duplicate. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 12:01 | comment | added | Brian Roach | @Gilles The point I'm making is that without the "No really, you should at least have the slightest clue" close option, "too broad" becomes completely ambiguous (as if it wasn't already). There are any number of "Tell be how to do this" questions that "let me google that for you" is the appropriate answer unless we don't care about the value of SO. If we want to turn SO into a mechanical turk for google searches, then ... I'm out. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 11:43 | comment | added | Brian Roach | @Gilles No, really, you could provide a reasonable answer to that in a couple paragraphs, in the abstract. But why? The OP has no clue, and the only A that would satisfy is doing it for them. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 11:34 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @BrianRoach Feels both too broad and unclear to me. It involves a lot of steps: selecting a random image, downloading it, displaying it… And if I wanted to implement all these steps, I'd need more information: how is the server accessed? How to list the available images? | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 11:30 | comment | added | Brian Roach | Yet another case in point: this Close because it's "too broad"? Well, no, not really. Pretty much anyone who wasn't actually clueless could provide the de facto code to answer that question. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 10:46 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @JohnSaunders (ang OGHaza) english.stackexchange.com/search?q=cromulent | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 10:07 | comment | added | OGHaza | Ha +1 for being the first person I've seen use cromulent on the web, may the up vote embiggen your rep | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 8:46 | comment | added | Mr Lister | @JohnSaunders Wiktionary is your friend | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 5:16 | comment | added | John Saunders | -1 for using the word "cromulent". Whatever that means. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 2:11 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @AdiInbar “good answers would be too long”. Asking to write a 10kLoC application? Sure, it's too broad. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 2:10 | comment | added | Adi Inbar | @Gilles I still disagree that "too broad" covers it. The description of the "too broad" reason implies that it applies to questions that are discussion topics, or ask people to expound on a wide-ranging subject, or otherwise aren't specific enough. A request for someone else to write one's code can be very specific. We can debate the semantics to death here at meta, but "too broad" doesn't get the message across to new users that this is a Q&A site, and that questions asking someone else to write a program to one's specs are off topic for that reason, not just because they're "too broad". | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:57 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @AdiInbar “requests that someone else write a program to perform a list of requirements is off-topic, unless the request is narrowly targeted enough to qualify as a specific how-to question” Exactly! If it's too broad, vote to close. If it's targeted enough, don't close. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:53 | comment | added | Adi Inbar | BTW, I want to note that when I was new at SO, I did sometimes answer "can you write this program for me?" type questions. It was through reading experienced members' "what have you tried" type comments and then reading discussions on meta that I learned that the general feeling in the community is that it's not what this site is about, and I've come to agree that "questions" like that subvert the site's mission. Asking for a program based on a description of requirements isn't a question about programming, even if it's phrased as "How would I write a program that does the following things?" | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:41 | comment | added | Ken White | @Gilles: What do I want? I read posts frequently at MSO about how we're not nice enough to new users, while at the same time changes are being made that make it less friendly. You're encouraging negative feedback "Downvote them instead, to make it very clear that their question is worth being beaten to death quickly while making them feel inferior at the same time." Putting the question on hold gives a chance for some more positive feedback ("you can get this reopened") and some time to improve it. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:39 | comment | added | Adi Inbar | I also want to add that downvoting is not sufficient for those kinds of "questions", because the issue isn't just a matter of quality, it's that it's not really a question and doesn't belong at a Q&A site. Presumably that's why it was in the "off-topic" category--because it's just that: off-topic. Just downvoting doesn't get the message across that this site is not intended to be a free code-writing service. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:33 | comment | added | Adi Inbar | I'm not talking about questions that ask for a "program" that does one specific thing, I'm talking about questions that describe a bunch of requirements and then ask "how do you write a program that does that?". To be a question, it should identify a specific think that's being asked--a problem with code that's not functioning as expected, or information on a specific topic--not just list some requirements and then say "can someone please write this for me?" | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:33 | comment | added | mmmmmm | @Gilles - what about this stackoverflow.com/review/close/3772169 stackoverflow.com/questions/20995621/… and one of many regexes stackoverflow.com/questions/8742772/regex-extraction | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:31 | comment | added | Adi Inbar | @Gilles Again, I strongly disagree, and what you're saying sounds to me like it runs completely against most of what I've read here at meta in the past and the impression I've gotten of the general feeling on the part of the community. It has been repeated over and over, SO is a Q&A site, which would imply that requests that someone else write a program to perform a list of requirements is off-topic, unless the request is narrowly targeted enough to qualify as a specific how-to question. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:28 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @KenWhite close → too broad, and downvote. What more do you want? | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:23 | comment | added | Ken White | @Gilles: Ok. I need an app (in Delphi, 'cause that's what we use where I work) that meets these specs (4 or 5 long paragraphs worth, dealing with some Active Directory and remote computer management), and it's URGENT!!!. If I post it NOW, can you have it for me in like 15 minutes??? It's really URGENT!!! Thx. BRB. Yeah, we need to encourage those questions more by leaving them open. The solution to the size of the close review queue is not to leave bad questions open longer, and neither is increasing the number of visible (and rather discouraging) downvotes. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:23 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @Mark That's a different kind of questions. “I tried to do X and it didn't work” usually requires code; there's a close reason for when the code is missing: “unclear what you're asking — Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need.” Preferably with a comment explaining briefly what is missing (e.g. “Post the code you're using for X, and tell us what compiler you're using.”) | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:21 | comment | added | Ken White | @Shog9: So do I. But I certainly don't expect to post my requirements on some web site and ask people to write it for me. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:21 | comment | added | mmmmmm | The issue is not too broad but where the questioner has not shown what they have attempted so we can see what their misunderstanding is | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:21 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @KenWhite Also, keep in mind that many of these low-effort questions ARE too broad and therefore can be closed on this basis. The point of the change is to not close the ones that aren't. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:20 | comment | added | Shog9 | FWIW, I like writing code. I didn't sign on to Stack Overflow to write prose. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:19 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @AdiInbar There is nothing intrinsically wrong with getting people to write code to the asker's specification. What is wrong is asking TOO MUCH code, which is exactly what too broad is about. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:19 | comment | added | Ken White | The entire point of putting questions on hold in the first place was to give the user a chance to edit the question and get it reopened. The change, IMO, simply means they stay open longer, and the "piling on" effect gets it substantially more downvotes and discourages people from bothering to improve them. ("Why should I fix that? It already has too many downvotes.") And how does that encourage people to use SO? "They bombarded my question away! Screw this BS!!!" | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:18 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @KenWhite Downvoted questions are mostly kept off the front page. Unanswered downvoted questions are deleted automatically after a while. Instead of having questions spending their time forever with 1 close vote and nobody getting around to reviewing them, we can downvote the crap out and move on, while not closing good questions just because they lack the required quota of code. I call this a win on all fronts. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:18 | comment | added | Adi Inbar | @Gilles I read the linked discussion before I posted any comments here, and I did read your answer, but I strongly disagree with it. Downvotes are not an adequate replacement for a closing reason for questions trying to get people to write code to the asker's specifications. I don't think I've been misusing it, judging from the fact that it has been one of my three most frequently used flagging reasons, and I've only had one out of 317 flags declined. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:18 | comment | added | Richard Tingle | I feel I'd be uncomfortable with people asking 3 or 4 questions, getting good answers on each, then bam question banned | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:16 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @Mark To provide feeback, use the button labeled “Add Comment”. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:15 | comment | added | Ken White | So your recommendation is that we just downvote the low (or no) effort questions, and populate the site with tons of downvoted questions? Yep, that should encourage more people to post questions on SO instead, and vastly increase the knowledge base here. I know that if I'd first come to SO and seen the front page full of -1, -2, or -5 questions I would certainly not have considered it a great font of expertise and problem solutions. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:12 | comment | added | mmmmmm | So it is now better to vote down giving the user no feedback rather than beg=fore the close reason giving them a pointer to do a bit more effort? | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:10 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @AdiInbar Read the threads I link to. And before that, read my answer, which summarizes the important part. In particular, I draw your attention to the proper button to use for questions that do not show effort on the asker's part. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 1:07 | comment | added | Adi Inbar | If the "minimal understanding" reason was being misused frequently, then perhaps it should be reworded to make it clearer what kinds of questions it's intended for. But I feel strongly that there should be a distinct closing reason for questions that just describe what the code should do and ask how to write it, without showing any attempt on the asker's part or identifying a specific problem. You say "closing is for questions that cannot reasonably be answered", but I'd add that it should also be for questions that can reasonably be answered but try to use SO as a free code-writing service. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 0:56 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @RichardTingle I'll leave that in my answer, because misusing closure to say “low effort” was a big part of why the “lacks understanding” close reason was removed. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 0:55 | comment | added | Richard Tingle | I realise by "low effort" I ment "requirement dumps" which was a repeat of what I had just said, so I've removed it from the question | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 0:51 | history | answered | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | CC BY-SA 3.0 |