I recently stumbled upon this question, which initially contained a link to jsfiddle.net but no code. Obviously the questioner had no problem posting it.

The link is active (not a plain text URL) and the whole question only consisted of the link and a paragraph of text. There was no formatted code, not even in backticks.

Has this feature been retracted lately, or is this a bug?

  • jsFiddle isn't banned universally, only on "super short posts" (30 characters that aren't links).
    – yannis
    Dec 21 '12 at 19:46
  • 3
    @Yannis, my understanding of Kevin's answer is that they tried that, but it did not give the expected results and they switched to unconditionally requiring code with a link. Maybe I'm wrong, though. Dec 21 '12 at 19:49
  • Could it have been (quickly) edited in after the question was asked initially? Dec 21 '12 at 23:36
  • @Andrew, nope, the feature applies to edits. As it should. Dec 21 '12 at 23:40
  • That initial revision does not look very short to me. I suspect it is long enough to get past the requirement. Dec 25 '12 at 3:54

Silly bug, wasn't accounting for the www.jsfiddle.net that was used in that post.

Changed some settings, and now everything should work as expected.

  • 6
    "www" is so last century.
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Jan 23 '13 at 23:36
  • Follow-up: Kevin, you may also want to exclude "fiddle.jshell.net", as it can be used to circumvent the block, as in this question. Sep 24 '14 at 10:38

Such posts were always "allowed" by the system. The issue was with posts that are mainly just a link (<30 plaintext chars).

One can ask a question of that length (it may even be a good one, though that's rare). Why should we block it if the question is of that length and has an extra link?

In general, why should we block posts with no code but links to jsfiddle? The link could easily be only tangentially related to the question or a slightly relevant example.

The problem is not no-code-link-to-fiddle, it was question-too-tiny. Though the system's autoblocker is quite lenient while defining "tiny". Autoblocking should be done only when you're pretty sure that false alarms will be extremely rare. Which is not the case here, imho.

That being said, the question linked to should have inline code. Though it has other issues as well.

You must log in to answer this question.

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