-18

Counting column data in a matrix with resets starts off with:

I'm gathering data on how much my cats poop into a matrix:

Most shockingly, this line says:

The cumsum function does something similar, but that's a primitive so I can't modify it to suit my dirty, dirty needs.

And in the closing

I have a lot of cats, and I've recorded years worth of poop data.

Could someone please explain why this question is allowed in its current form on Stack Overflow? I think this is a great question for Code Golf.

Does anyone really think this user collects a record of their cats' waste?

But the problem that the question exists isn't my main concern. My main concern is that this is an audit question for close votes. I failed it for clicking close. I find that it should be closed under "offensive".

Improve this question
25
  • 12
    Who are we to judge people on their cat poop data collection?
    – animuson StaffMod
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 21:44
  • 4
    It's a real question, with some humor thrown in. What exactly do you think is wrong with the question itself?
    – Martijn Pieters
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 21:44
  • 19
    cumsum() is an actual function in R. It means "cumulative sum". Are you shocked and offended by questions about touch, finger, and mount, too?
    – jscs
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 21:44
  • 1
    First vote to close cast, thanks for bringing it to our attention.
    – Lance Roberts
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 21:44
  • 26
    @LanceRoberts What, exactly, is close-worthy there?
    – Undo
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 21:45
  • 1
    @MartijnPieters Like I said in my post. I don't really personally care if the question exists, but it should definitley not be an audit question. I think it belongs on CODE-Golf, where this sort of thing is more approved of. But I'm still kinda new, so if someone could answer how I should handle these types of things and why, I'd love to have that info.
    – anon
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 21:45
  • 1
    scatological references aside, this audit is a gas
    – Andy Jones
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 21:49
  • 1
    Interestingly, this post has been used for audits 12 times, and only 2 people have failed.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 21:54
  • 4
    Did this post actually offend you personally? Or you just thought someone somewhere might be offended?
    – Martin Smith
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 21:55
  • 3
    @AlienArrays - Probably someone, somewhere, is actually doing genuine research on this very topic. Wouldn't be surprised to see an IgNobel prize to join such classics as "The Constipated Serviceman: Prevalence Among Deployed US Troops" or "Pressures Produced When Penguins Poo—Calculations on Avian Defecation"
    – Martin Smith
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 22:04
  • 2
    @Pëkka - As a faeces? Though strangely the penguin one came under Physics (fluid dynamics)
    – Martin Smith
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 22:21
  • 11
    It's amazing to me, @Lance, how you defend everyone's right to answers and insist on correctness in close votes but jump right on this question as "trolling" because it contains something you apparently consider a dirty word.
    – jscs
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 22:50
  • 2
    It's amazing to me @Josh, that you think SO should be the sewer of the Internet. There are plenty of filthy sites out there, why do you insist that this site be one also.
    – Lance Roberts
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 23:05
  • 14
    Real poop goes into the sewer, @Lance; the word is just a name for it, and using it doesn't hurt anyone. Edit it if you have another name you prefer that strongly. I think 100% of the English speakers I know would put "poop" in the top five mildest, least-offensive terms for that substance. The question could be changed to replace "makes poopies" with "eats tuna fish" without altering the technical issue one iota.
    – jscs
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 23:11
  • 3
    I really don't understand the concept... is poop profanity? Kitty poop, for potato sake! A web hit of the first kind.
    – brasofilo
    Commented Jan 6, 2014 at 1:09

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
25

I don't understand what's wrong with this as an audit. It's a highly-upvoted, clear question with (as far as I can see) a few solid answers. There's no "offensive" close reason. You're thinking of the "edit" button.

If you ignore the "p**p" for a moment*, the question clearly describes a specific coding problem, demonstrates understanding of the domain, and admits a bounded answer. No close reason applies here; the question should remain open.

*And take a second to realize that cumsum() is a function in R for "cumulative sum".

Improve this answer
3
  • +1 Changing "cat poops" to "defecates", "creates feces", or something more scientific would be fine
    – Andy Jones
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 21:50
  • 6
    Really? "poop" is pretty mild where I come from. That's what kids in kindergarten call it.
    – jscs
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 21:51
  • 14
    Cf. "Everybody Poops", recommended for ages 2 and up.
    – jscs
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 21:57
6

I guess "poop" is technically slang but I can't imagine a proficient speaker of English not knowing it. And it's certainly more likely they would know it than "feces" or even something like "carburetor," which would be a valid domain-specific term. 4 year olds learn the word and that's what they call it.

And you go with "offensive"? What exactly about cats pooping and doing statistics on it is offensive?

If it's not offensive, then... what are you closing it for? It just felt somehow wrong to have the word "poop" in it? You can't just make up close reasons. That's one things audits are for, to make sure you're not doing that.

Improve this answer
4
  • 4
    Gah! Would you please use a couple of asteri**s in the "carb"-word?!
    – jscs
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 21:58
  • 1
    @JoshCaswell maybe on the part I'm not sure if I spelled right.
    – djechlin
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 21:59
  • 2
    @AlienArrays think you're reading into it there. Don't think there's any way the OP could have actually used the cumsum function while making it sound less like a pun on the slangier parts. Pretty clear "dirty, dirty needs" is referring to cat poop. No reference to bestiality in the post.
    – djechlin
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 22:25
  • 1
    @AlienArrays FTR if I actually saw a "cum" joke on SO, I would either edit or flag depending on whether it sounded lighthearted (but inappropriate) or troll-ish in my judgment. In that case I would say it would make a bad audit, since our audits don't really test for "did you edit or flag instead of close or leave alone".
    – djechlin
    Commented Jan 5, 2014 at 22:30