Discuss Close Reasons

200_success

20:37

@StackExchange It looks like there is a lot of pent-up dissatisfaction about the current slate of close reasons. We have had this unfinished business for a while:

20

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

Note: For chat-like discussions of this subject, let's use this Discuss Close Reasons chat room Code Review currently has three standard off-topic reasons: Questions containing broken code or asking for advice about code not yet written are off-topic, as the code is not ready for review. A...

Unfortunately, management has pushed back on allowing more than 3 reasons, so rolfl's top-voted proposal, as well as @janos's suggestion, are ruled out unless we can provide strong justification.

Mat's Mug

tough one. anything we propose can be countered with "just use a custom close reason"

Joe Wallis

What about just removing "someone else's"?

200_success

RobertCartaino's proposal is mostly OK. I'm not quite sold on the "Tools and programming concepts" wording; those are rarely the issue.

Quill

@SimonForsberg I thought I've seen him having CS discussions with Skiwi about Neural Networks

200_success

@Mat'sMug If I had my way, I'd choose to have 5 specific reasons and forbid write-in reasons altogether.

Simon Forsberg

20:42

@Quill I have no memory of that

@200_success or change them so that they become three, which would be difficult...

@200_success yes, definitely rarely an issue (probably never)

200_success

I'm OK with my proposal (naturally), with the main weakness being that it doesn't explain the rationale behind them. That could be improved without too much change, I think.

Mat's Mug

> 1This has nothing to do with reviewing code. Nothing whatsoever.
1I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because you're not looking for a code review and just an alternative solution on a black-box level ("gimme the better codes").
1I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this isn't a code review. This *might* be more at home on the Programmers SE, but considering the nature of the question I doubt it is. In any case, always check a StackExchange's [Help](http://codereview.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask) and [follow its Tour](http://codereview.stackexchange.com/t…

perhaps a "not seeking a code review" reason might be useful too

Quill

The transcript around that message is one

Simon Forsberg

@Mat'sMug yes, it would be helpful with something like that

200_success

Simon's proposal is mostly OK, but I'm worried about the "not be stripped of too much context" wording.

@SimonForsberg If we're going to try changing 5 to 3, we may as well work from the three proposals of 3.

Mat's Mug

20:47

I feel the "broken code" reason should stand on its own. "code not yet written" + "broken code" account for 65% of closed questions in the past 30 days. I'd like to see how much of it is "code not yet written" ....and ideally reword that "code not yet written" reason too

200_success

@Mat'sMug The problem with "not seeking a code review" is that commenters bother the poster with "What's your question? Are you seeking a review of the code in general? Oh, why didn't you say so?" I'd prefer to take the view that if they have posted working code and explained its purpose, then it's a valid code review request.

Mat's Mug

right

but "broken code, etc." needs to be ...broken down

200_success

"code that is not working as intended" pretty much takes care of confusion around "broken", I think.

Mat's Mug

yes and I like it too. I'm just saying it should be on its own - "code not yet written" isn't "code not working as intended", and together these two make up 2/3 of closed questions. they need to be separated.

♪ you gotta keep 'em separated ♪

200_success

Why separate them? Whether the code is 0% written, 95% written, or 100% written but produces wrong results, we're telling them to come back when it's finished.

Joe Wallis

20:59

Wouldn't it make sense to put it with "Pseudocode, hypothetical code, or stub code"?

200_success

Unfortunately, the current challenge is to coalesce 5 reasons into 3 strategically, so we can't afford to separate them.

@JoeWallis I think it helps to use a different reason on questions where the author might have real working code, but has redacted or abstracted it in such a way that it is not reviewable.

Otherwise, the OP could come back with "my code does work, I just want your opinions on the general concept".

Simon Forsberg

@200_success Didn't even remember that I had a proposal.

@Mat'sMug We do get quite a bit of "gimme the codez" that instead of "broken code" could be considered "not asking for a code review"

Mat's Mug

yes!

Malachi

what is the CSS I need to use to make table-row displayed divs not wrap...

Mat's Mug

and that strongly skews the close stats toward overuse of the "broken code" close reason

200_success

21:12

A problem with Robert's slate (and Simon's variant) is that its wordy, and in particular, to of them start very similarly.

Simon Forsberg

@200_success I prefer them to explicitly say if the code is working or not. And even though it's not required to state a question, I'd prefer it if all questions contains some sort of specific review question or a "Any feedback appreciated" statement

200_success

OK, but shutting down a question for lacking the magic words is often unnecessarily aggressive.

Jeroen Vannevel

@200_success and has been the way things are done here for a long time

I hate it, personally

And I yell at people about it when I care enough to

200_success

12

Q: Should a post with no specific question(s) imply a general review?

I've started thinking about this more after seeing this question. I'm sometimes tempted to vote such questions as not clear what you're asking, but I also feel that it's not quite needed for this site. This is different from SO, where it's just impossible to help if no request is given with the...

discussion faq site-policy asking-questions

Jeroen Vannevel

I've seen too many closures that can be avoided by just adding the implicit question or removing a single sentence in the post

200_success

21:17

… in which case the closure was pointless in the first place.

Jeroen Vannevel

I know, I'm agreeing with you.

200_success

unfreeze

Jeroen Vannevel

gotta weigh in my voice to stay relevant

200_success

← 47 messages moved from The 2nd Monitor

→ 1 message moved to The 2nd Monitor

I have difficulty discerning the difference between Robert's first two reasons.

Transcript for

Discuss Close Reasons