Here is the post in question: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2349378/new-programming-jargon-you-coined
According to Jeff Atwood's Stack Overflow: Where We Hate Fun, there are three things to consider when deciding what content should be allowed:
- Does this question match the criteria provided in the Stack Overflow FAQ?
- Is this question accepted by the community, as reflected in upvotes, favorites, views, and answers?
- Does this question teach me anything that could make me better at my job? Can I learn something from it?
I realize this definitely does not qualify for #1. But there is no question that the Jargon post meets qualification #2. I argue that it also meets qualification #3, and Jeff said, "As Meat Loaf once said, two out of three ain’t bad. It’s guideline #3 that ends up being the pivotal decision in most borderline cases." I think this borderline case leans towards the useful end of the spectrum.
While I admit some of the answers are frivolous and just entertaining, I also believe that some are genuinely useful.
In particular, the top-rated answer, "Yoda Conditions", is a phrase I heard used by a colleague before I even knew about that post, and found it to be a very useful description for a common idiom that previously had no good name. And, in fact, a google search for this phrase shows it being used in many places besides that post. There is some other very useful jargon* in this post, but I think "Yoda Conditions" alone qualifies this answer as useful.
To quote Jeff further:
I know that we’re all programmers, so we love thinking of the world in absolute, binary terms — either fun questions must never be allowed, or fun questions must always be allowed. Well, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the world is more … floating point. We will sometimes allow fun questions that meet the three broad guidelines I outlined above, but even then, only a limited amount.
I believe this question meets two of the guidelines and qualifies for this "limited amount".
For some back-discussion see Can we revive deleted content that does not follow the guidelines but nonetheless contains an abundance of community relevance? Basically in this question I was arguing that there should be some posts that should remain alive despite not following the FAQ guidelines, and used the Jargon post as an example; turns out Jeff Atwood already said in the linked article exactly what I was advocating for. This new question is specifically about the Jargon post and nothing else).