Recently I found a new hint when answering the questions in SO, saying:

Please make your answer complete by including relevant, formatted code inline (don't just link to jsfiddle.net).

In one question the OP mixed up the library he embeds in the Fiddle, and the answer was to point out that the library should be changed (which finally leads to correct code run).

So I was unable to post a link to the corrected Fiddle because of the hint popped up each form submission:

To avoid the problem I've made a screenshot of library selection block instead... but anyways, how should we do in such situations?

UPDATE: Since we may consider the described example as an edge-case, why then we still able to post an answer with jsfiddle.net link but without scheme prefix (i.e. jsfiddle.net/abcdef)? Of course the link doesn't become an anchor, but still is quite readable, which doesn't protect of the link-only answers. Hence it makes the feature somewhat buggy.

  • 4
    "I've made a screenshot of library selection block instead" And how is that bad? Most fiddle links are meant to demonstrate code. Other changes in the side pane? Not so much. Granted, when it comes to images some people may just make a screenshot of the code and post it with the fiddle link, but even that requires some degree of effort on their part. – BoltClock's a Unicorn Dec 19 '12 at 9:54
  • 2
    True, but I can't see any way around this. Letting the user bypass the block will just result in everyone doing it. – Shadow Wizard Wearing Mask Dec 19 '12 at 9:57
  • Did the message actually stop you? It looks like the kind of hint from adding too many comments to a question: it stops you from clicking the first time, but you can dismiss it and submit anyway. – user1201210 Dec 19 '12 at 9:59
  • I think the answer is complete without the link to jsFiddle. – nhahtdh Dec 19 '12 at 9:59
  • 4
    @tenterhook: I just tested - no it refuses to let you edit the post, no matter how many times the button is clicked. The link can be included, if it is made not clickable. – nhahtdh Dec 19 '12 at 9:59
  • @nhahtdh However, you may easily add link without http:// and it will work. – VisioN Dec 19 '12 at 10:02
  • @VisioN: It is not clickable, or am I missing something? – nhahtdh Dec 19 '12 at 10:09
  • 1
    @BoltClock'saUnicorn By all means, if such situations may occur, why not to make the hint box to be a warning, not an error? – VisioN Dec 19 '12 at 10:09
  • Because then people can just dismiss the warning and proceed, rendering it completely useless. – BoltClock's a Unicorn Dec 19 '12 at 10:11
  • @nhahtdh Yes, not clickable, but again it doesn't prevent you from posting the link. – VisioN Dec 19 '12 at 10:11
  • 2
    @BoltClock'saUnicorn But still there are several quite easy ways to bypass it. So this feature is either redundant or is a bug. – VisioN Dec 19 '12 at 10:12
  • 2
    Personally I think a comment outlining the issue, and a vote to close as "too localized" would be the correct coarse of action. – rlemon Dec 19 '12 at 14:55
  • s/coarse/course/ – rlemon Dec 19 '12 at 15:16
  • @VisioN it's not because it's easy to bypass that it's redundant or a bug. Want to mention proxies? – Florian Margaine Dec 19 '12 at 15:23
  • @rlemon Agree, but from that sense most of current SO questions should be closed as "too localized". Hope it doesn't mean that we need to close questions because we are unable to post answers. – VisioN Dec 19 '12 at 15:28

The main problem with this is that there are ways to get around it, all of which are worse for SO than a direct link to jsFiddle. You can use a URL shortener to post the link. You can backtick a completely irrelevant word. You can post the link without the http://. So either we need to make this watertight, or discard it outright, because as it stands it just incentivises ugly hacks like the ones I mentioned.

As a side note, a link to jsFiddle isn't absolutely necessary in this specific case (although it would be nice). You could just describe how to include the appropriate library and optionally include a screenshot.

| improve this answer | |
  • The main problem is that some users apparently rather work around it than address the actual issue. That's a user problem, not really a feature problem. – Bart Dec 19 '12 at 21:03
  • 1
    I was just editing a question where the OP entered a jsFiddle link without the http://. Probably just to get around this. When I edited it to add the http:// in I got the error! I decided to be nice and copy & paste the code into the question for him. – Rocket Hazmat Feb 14 '13 at 16:40
  • Just because you can't ban some behavior, doesn't mean putting up obstacles to it is useless. The idea of the policy is that there are people who will paste the link, see the warning, and actually copy the code into the question instead of obfuscating the link. And I think that idea is sound. As for making it watertight, there will never be a precise algorithm that catches all possible ways of hiding a link to jsFiddle.net. There are just too many ways to get around filters. – Rory O'Kane Jul 30 '13 at 20:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .