When a trivial answer contains links in the form:

[link][1] info info


When they are converted to a comment, the links get mangled to something like:

[link][2] info info [1]:http://example.com

Can we please have better logic in the conversion?

Alternatively, if the answer contains a link, do not consider it to be trivial.


Just to clarify that what I would like to see is that answers with that get converted, get converted properly.

If the answer was using the following link style:

[link][3] info info 


It should get converted to:

[link](http://example.com) info info

Instead of:

[link][4] info info [1]:http://example.com


This is still happening. Just seen in the wild:

enter image description here

  • here is a proper [example][1]. [1]: meta.stackexchange.com/q/112742/140505
    – Oded
    Nov 18, 2011 at 11:19
  • The comment above ^^^^ was automatically converted from an answer with a link.
    – Oded
    Nov 18, 2011 at 11:22
  • 3
    If the answer is just a link then it is trivial. The link should only be used to back up the answer.
    – ChrisF Mod
    Nov 18, 2011 at 11:24
  • Does the automatic conversion work only for users with a reputation lower than a value? I tried in the sandbox here on meta, and the answer was not converted in a comment.
    – apaderno
    Nov 18, 2011 at 11:33
  • @ChrisF - And if it is a few words and a link? I tend to do that and then expand.
    – Oded
    Nov 18, 2011 at 11:37
  • 3
    Obviously there are borderline cases which would need determining, but posting link + a few words to get the first answer in isn't a reason to allow the behaviour.
    – ChrisF Mod
    Nov 18, 2011 at 12:09
  • @Arjan - Looks like you sparked off this question being closed... help!
    – Oded
    Nov 22, 2011 at 22:00
  • (Hmmm, was this the question to which I commented I did not support my own close vote? That comment is gone now then, but I see things have been re-opened, so no sweat I hope.)
    – Arjan
    Nov 23, 2011 at 12:43
  • @Arjan - Yes, this is the same question, I flagged it to the moderators after it was closed, so it looks like they re-opened it.
    – Oded
    Nov 23, 2011 at 13:32
  • How is this not a duplicate? Dec 14, 2011 at 19:54
  • @Fezziwig - There was a similar question about the moderators tool (which supposedly was fixed). This is not about that tool but about the automatic conversion.
    – Oded
    Dec 14, 2011 at 19:56
  • Ah. I would really hope they use the same code, but maybe not Dec 14, 2011 at 19:57
  • @Fezziwig - Well... they might be and the moderation tool regressed...
    – Oded
    Dec 14, 2011 at 19:58
  • This is still happening, see my comment here, should the status-completed tag be removed or should I ask a new question? May 7, 2013 at 14:26
  • 3
    Why is this by design? If the syntax won't be fixed during conversion then why bother converting it? May 7, 2013 at 14:30


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .