Possible Duplicate:
Repository of useful pro-forma comments

Following the deletion of "What Stack Overflow is not" (WSOIN) I felt like I would somewhat miss it as it served a purpose, although I agree probably not in the right way.

I think the main benefit of that post was to make it easier to educate people by not having to re-write the same comment over and over.

Building up on the ideas in this discussion about how WSOIN could be improved I suggest the creation of an FPC (Frequently Posted Comments) that could be used as a reference and would unify such comments in an educative and constructive way.

As an example, the SSCCE concept is very useful and a good comment when somebody posts a piece of code "that does not work" but the reason for the problem is not in the code that has been posted.

So I can suggest the following FPC :


Posting a Short, Self Contained, Correct Example (SSCCE) that demonstrates your problem would help you get better answers.


Posting a [Short, Self Contained, Correct Example (SSCCE)](http://www.sscce.org/) that demonstrates your problem would help you get better answers.

  • @BenBrocka The idea is similar although what I propose is probably more focused. – assylias Jun 27 '12 at 13:16
  • 8
    Commenting on accept rate really isn't encouraged. These comments are off-topic to the question being asked. They get flagged and deleted often. – Bill the Lizard Jun 27 '12 at 13:19
  • @BilltheLizard Maybe not the best example, but I thought a consensus had been reached on meta recommending to politely inform new users what the accept rate is - quote: "On the other hand, for users who don't know about the 'acceptance rate' they will require someone to tell them about it." – assylias Jun 27 '12 at 13:22
  • 3
    @assylias Two sentences later in the same post: "NO, it is not appropriate to change your behaviour because of some user's acceptance rate. This includes commenting on it." These comments really are noise, particularly after the user has already worked on their accept rate. I'd rather see a system message that notifies users with low accept rate. That way it's not a distraction for everyone else who reads the post. – Bill the Lizard Jun 27 '12 at 13:29
  • @BilltheLizard I'm kind of baffled as to why the system shows us a user's accept rate if it's not acceptable to actually look at it or use it in any way – Michael Mrozek Jun 27 '12 at 13:40
  • 1
    @BilltheLizard Since my proposal had nothing to do with accept rates per se I have provided a different and hopefully less controversial example. – assylias Jun 27 '12 at 13:45
  • 1
    @MichaelMrozek "...not appropriate to change your behaviour..." is a little bit strong. I'm really only concerned with commenting on accept rate. If users choose not to answer people with low accept rates, that's their prerogative. – Bill the Lizard Jun 27 '12 at 13:45
  • @assylias Thanks! See how off-topic comments distract from a post? ;) – Bill the Lizard Jun 27 '12 at 13:45
  • I was personally not really in favor of the deletion of WSOIN, but how is this any different? If we see the exact same message plastered below questions over and over again, would that not lead to similar objections? – Bart Jun 27 '12 at 13:50
  • 3
    Yes, lets put them all in one place so that Shog9 can delete the post when they become popular. – user1228 Jun 27 '12 at 14:01
  • @Won't why, what happened? Was something deleted recently? – Pekka Jun 27 '12 at 14:11
  • 1
    What Stack Overflow is not is gone? WTF?????? – Pekka Jun 27 '12 at 14:12
  • @DiscountGucciHandbags The idea is to rebuild something similar to WSOIN in a more positive and educative manner. I agree that this is linked to your post but maybe more general in the sense that it is not meant to address language-specific frequent comments for example. – assylias Jun 27 '12 at 14:16
  • 1
    @DiscountGucciHandbags: YES! Feel the rage build inside you! – user1228 Jun 27 '12 at 14:16
  • 3
    @assylias: "more positive and educative manner." Ugh, somebody hand me a gucci vomit bag. – user1228 Jun 27 '12 at 14:16