Discuss Close Reasons

The wording of the proposals is still being discussed. Feel free to edit one of the existing answers or post an answer of your own. Note, however, that it is likely we will start with a clean slate of answers and votes after some discussion. — 200_success ♦ 14 secs ago

Simon André Forsberg

I like the elaborativeness about @rolfl's answer, the "reasons behind the reasons" as @200_success said.

@200's answer seems very concise. I also don't like that "Questions about code that has not yet been written, code that does not work as intended, or code that the author does not understand are off-topic" are bundled together.

200_success

That's easy — I've only used four slots.

Vogel612

then again the reason behind the reason is explained there...

Mast

@SimonAndréForsberg It does allow for many close reasons while only a few options are available.

Vogel612

> anything except the real code that is used in your actual project

^ I think that part's too heavy

rolfl

12:46 PM

@Vogel612 Current reason contains "... should be replaced by a concrete example." and that is open to too much editing.

I was intentionally trying to avoid that loophole.

Simon André Forsberg

In @rolfl's answer, I'm not sure if "buggy code" should go under #2 or #3. fixing bug is "alter the behaviour of existing code", is it not?

rolfl

@SimonAndréForsberg Normally bug-questions are asked in the "why is my code broken?", not the "please fix my code" sense.

Simon André Forsberg

true that

Vogel612

the ultimate goal still is: "I want to fix this"

rolfl

^^^ yes... but first I have to understand the problem....

Simon André Forsberg

12:52 PM

@rolfl With your close reason proposals, how would you handle this question?

2

Q: Original factorial method in Java

I found this piece of code on codegolf.stackexchange.com in a trolling competition; http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/16673/8806 : public int factorial ( int n ) { switch(n){ case 0: return 1; case 1: return 1; case 2: return 2; case 3: return 6; case 4: return 24; case 5: return 120; case 6...

java

200_success

Keep in mind that if multiple off-topic reasons apply to a question, there may be a split vote, then none of the reasons will be displayed at all.

Vogel612

that used to be different, right?

rolfl

@SimonAndréForsberg "Considering the difference in speed (is there one?), would that still be considered bad-designed code?" <--- opinion based

200_success

I would prefer the factorial to be closed as "someone else's code" because it's a final decision, unfixable. I've ordered the reasons that way for that reason.

Simon André Forsberg

@rolfl The whole point of this site is "Is this bad-designed code?". I'm not buying your reasoning.

rolfl

12:56 PM

Hmmm.....

@SimonAndréForsberg As a side discussion, I disagree with this statement: The whole point of this site is "Is this bad-designed code?" .... I would agree with this, though: The whole point of this site is "Is this badly implemented code?"

Simon André Forsberg

ah, the good old DFQ debate... I see your point, but I don't agree with it. And I think we can resume the DFQ/IOQ/IFQ/DOQ debate at another time. Not today :)

rolfl

That factorial question is a crappy question.

like, really crappy.

what does "that" mean in the last sentence: My question is: Considering the difference in speed (is there one?), would that still be considered bad-designed code?

Mast

@rolfl I think I'd put it under Blatantly off-topic, it's that evil

rolfl

Unclear what you're asking, opinion-based, explain-programmer's thinking, etc.

Simon André Forsberg

@rolfl "that" == "the code"

Am I the only one here that likes the factorial question?

rolfl

1:05 PM

which code... the code in the question, or the recursive code that's not presented?

Simon André Forsberg

the code in the question

Mast

@SimonAndréForsberg It's not fit for CR, but I have nothing against the post it links to.

It was a hype at codegolf which raised some debate about how people should think about solutions.

Simon André Forsberg

@Mast It's not fit for CR because...? It's not the OP's code? Yes, I am aware of that (and that was what I primarily wanted to point out here)

Mast

I liked the discussions it brought forth, but as said, it's not re-viewable in my opinion.

rolfl

@SimonAndréForsberg Urgh.... just u-upvoted and then down-voted your answer there, @Simon.

Simon André Forsberg

1:07 PM

I think my answer managed to review it quite well.

Mast

@SimonAndréForsberg For starters

rolfl

What was I thinking when I first upvoted it?

Simon André Forsberg

@rolfl What are you thinking now that you down-voted it?

rolfl

Well, stack overflow happens a long way after 370 depth, and, it does not matter because you get wrong rewsults for int after 12 depth, and you get wrong results for double after abour 15

and, for double, your results are horrible, horrible, horrible.

Mast

Considering the difference in speed (is there one?), would that still be considered bad-designed code?

If speed is your problem, you don't need code

You need a database.

nhgrif

1:10 PM

Hi

rolfl

Hey

Simon André Forsberg

@rolfl I edited that part about overflow. I have confused it with when a double reaches infinity. (approx 10^370)

rolfl

Double has only 48-bits of precision, so, since int overflows at 13! and produces bad data, and long overflows at 20! and produces wrong data, double will overflow at about 15! and produce wrong data.

nhgrif

@rolfl reading from phone I think your close reason are good, but how are 2 and 5 different?

Simon André Forsberg

@rolfl changed to biginteger, happy now?

rolfl

1:12 PM

@nhgrif 2 is understanding what the code does, and 5 is understanding why the programmer did it.

Simon André Forsberg

The discussion here wasn't meant to be about my answer though. It was meant to be about how you would handle a question which was on-topic, except for the code not being the OP's.

nhgrif

Or rather... I understand the difference... Better question is whether or not they are separated... But if we get 5 reasons I think this is okay

Mast

@nhgrif I think they shouldn't be seperated. Both should be called 'asking for Code Understanding is off-topic' (or something like that)

Simon André Forsberg

I also think that 2 and 5 are very similar. I also don't think we should use five close reasons just for the sake of using five close reasons, because we can...

3

rolfl

@SimonAndréForsberg I was aiming for 5 to cover the not-your-own code situation, but hoping to word it in a way that encompasses the sentiment/consequence of it, rather than the actual wording "not your own code".

By using the words "not your own code" you make it too easy for people to say: this is my code, but why did I do it this way?

Simon André Forsberg

1:16 PM

If it is your code, you should know why you did it that way.

I don't think anyone will ever ask "This is my code, but why did I do it this way?"

nhgrif

That sounds good. I don't think the asker should necessarily be the author as long as they are using the site in the right spirit of code review.

By the way... It's of course unsurprising that Simon isn't on board. Rule of 2 and all. Between Simon, rolfl, and myself, only 2 of us are ever allowed to agree on anything.

5

rolfl

@SimonAndréForsberg - If I were to re-close that factorial question, it would be: discussions about what best practices should be are off topic for Code Review.

Hmmmm... If I were to reverse the sense of the close-reason-5 ..... make it 'not your own code', and the 'follow-on-detail' ..... like this:

Simon André Forsberg

this could probably be elaborated a bit more but:

Questions about code you did not originally write is off-topic because of moral, practical, and legal reasons

rolfl

> Questions asking about someone else's code are off topic because programmers are expected to know what motivated design and implementation choices when presenting code for review. It is assumed that if you don't know why the code was written a certain way, that the code is not your own code.

How about that ^^^ ?

Simon André Forsberg

it's not just about explaining though (as proven by the factorial question)

rolfl

1:28 PM

s/explain/review/ ?

Simon André Forsberg

s/explain// ?

rolfl

edited .... ^^^

Simon André Forsberg

s/to review/about/ ?

How should we revise the standard off-topic reasons, if we can have up to five?

6

^^ pin that please?

Mast

Stop the regex already, gets confusing as hell.

rolfl

about!

2

A: How should we revise the standard off-topic reasons, if we can have up to five?

I believe we should use 5 close reasons. This will significantly reduce the confusion people may express when they have to figure out which of multiple close reasons was actually used to close a question: Questions must include the code to be reviewed. Links to code hosted on third-party sites ...

edited.... ^^^

Vogel612

1:32 PM

@Mast meh.. not really regex.. just perl

Mast

@Vogel612 close enough

@rolfl I like your third reason. It's not explicit enough in the five we currently have.

Simon André Forsberg

Now I am happy with the 'categories' of your 5 close reasons, @rolfl. The rest is more about fine-tuning wording and stuff.

rolfl

OMG >... @nhgrif - what's your problem with them now? ^^^^ ?

@SimonAndréForsberg Can any of them be merged to 'free up' close reasons?

Simon André Forsberg

I think at the moment 2 and 3 are the ones that are the most similar

not sure one can be freed up though

nhgrif

1:59 PM

There isn't a close reason for "this question isn't about Objective-C or Swift"

Mast

2:10 PM

@nhgrif Don't make me propose the inverse

nhgrif

8:36 PM

Hey, @rolfl... so... I'm home now and reading your list on a real screen.

> 2. Questions asking to understand the actual behaviour of code (whether to understand why the code works, or why the code is broken) are off topic because programmers are expected to be able to explain the code to the reviewers (not the other way around).

> 3. Questions asking to fix or add features to code are off topic because that is seeking input during the design process and that is "team-programming", not a code review.

So, when the user knows there is a bug, tells us where the bug is, and asks to fix it, that's close reason 3.

When the user asks us to look for any bugs, or isn't sure if the code works, or knows there is some sort of bug but hasn't got a clue as to what it's related to, that's reason #2?

and... is there any way at all for us to put any sort of science behind what close reasons are currently used most often? I feel like the most frequently used reasons should be sorted toward the top of that list, but I don't think that's necessarily the case.

My gut tells me that we're most frequently closing pseudo/hypothetical/stub code, broken code, non-existent code (github links), and probably in that order.

rolfl

8:53 PM

@nhgrif I originally had them sorted in a "loosely" most-common-first type order, but @200 made the point that most "challenging" first is better.

nhgrif

"most challenging"?

rolfl

challenging-to-fix being the operative sense.

i.e. it is not possible to fix the "not your code".

nhgrif

I see.

That probably makes sense.

rolfl

So, if a reason applies, and you get to it first, it is the "biggest hurdle" to overcome in the fixing process.

nhgrif

Because if we close for "fixing a bug", they fix bug and think it's ready to reopen, but it's still not, because it's not actually their code.

rolfl

8:55 PM

that ^^^

In his words:

nhgrif

and as a close voter, I'm most likely to pick the first applicable reason I get to because I'm sometimes lazy.

rolfl

My preferred order is 5 (someone else's code), 2 (understand behaviour), 3 (add or alter), 4 (real code), 1 (embed). Then users should pick the first fault that applies. Someone else's code is unfixable; embedding code is easily fixable. — 200_success ♦ 3 hours ago

After hearing it put that way, I agree with it and think duh, why did I not think of that first

@nhgrif About the science of close reasons, it's sort of hard.....

SEDE would be a logical place to go to, but it's a problem because closed questions get purged from there.

moderators can search for deleted content, but compiling the detains on "why" would be a significant undertaking.

> deleted:1 closed:1 is:q

> 6,628 results

Simon André Forsberg

@nhgrif I think "broken code" is our most-popular one. All these users thinking that this is SO....

nhgrif

The pseudo/hypothetical/stub comes from SO too.

Simon André Forsberg

true that

Transcript for

Discuss Close Reasons