Not really my area of expertise, so I need to ask here: Is this question (and its answer) complying to our "quality standards"? Online Judge that support Go programming language

Basically, no more requirements given than already contained in the title. The answer reflects that, of course (how else could it be).

Oh, one requirement though: Please give one answer for each site

Which makes that a list-type question. Ouch.

Self-answered, aha.

OMG... He's doing it, building up a list of answers – each not more than a link and a screenshot...

@JourneymanGeek @Gilles As I don't have the feeling this ^^ complies to what our site is about: shall we intervene before frustrating the user with deleting 20 of his posts? Or am I overreacting here?

The answers already show up in the review queue (delete as low-quality).

@Izzy: heh, was going to deal with it after work. Closed

@JourneymanGeek Thanks!

Yuck. Don't mods check the target site before migrating a question? I remember having heard of a rule "don't migrate crap". Maybe we should tell our friends at Stats.SE about our requirements? (Referring to this question)

Quite annoying for the user, getting your question first migrated then closed …

Yeah

Left me no choice with my vote. But I left a comment at least. With some luck, OP updates before the VTC-threshold hits …

@Izzy Our requirements are a bunch more stringent than most other sites, it might be better to just keep bouncing them back instead of trying to educate 'em.

lol

sorry ._.

LOL2

Sorry2

:)

They did ask, but we weren't around I think ;p

@Undo s/instead/to/

@JourneymanGeek I didn't see anything here in chat scrolling back to check

lol

@JourneymanGeek Ah. Haven't been there, right. #D

So, new rule for them: If you get no reply, try chat as well :)

What brings me to the question: Our /help/on-topic has a link to the rules as well

Q: Can we convert that line with the links to a "quote", to make it "stand out" a little better?

Er maybe, let me check if that's even editable

Ah, 'tis

I'd integrate some essentials directly (instead of simply linking to). Let me see if I can edit it as well (just being curious) …

Doubt it.

Right.

Good software recommendation requests have two components:

 * A **purpose** — a task to accomplish, a user story
 * Some **objective requirements** — a minimum set of features

Please read our [**question quality guidelines**](meta.softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/336/…).

<p>Please <a href="/search">look around</a> to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to <a href="/helpcenter/self-answer">ask and answer your own question</a>.</p>

^ There's the source right now, feel free to edit it up and make a meta post about it.

OK, mind if I suggest an edit here – and you integrate it? Or are you already editing it anyway?

Although I doubt many folks bother reading the on-topic page to start with

Mods should do

They should set an example

@Izzy I'm not editing it right now

But if you've got something, I have no issues throwing it up there :)

And if unsure, they shouldn't migrate right away – but RTFP first :)

@Undo OK, minor suggestions:

"> Please read our …" (<- make that a blockquote to stand out)

Bullet-list with most important stuff below that, like this:

Especially, make sure your question …

Yuck. Last bullet updated:

* lists all your requirements explicitly – even when asking for alternatives

That would basically be it.

I like it

For now :)

@Undo Thanks! So put it in?

I've tried to keep it short and compact – noones reading a book before posting :)

So I just asked around, the guidelines for any non-trivial edits to the help center is to propose it on Meta first.

I can do it when I get time, if you'd like

I'd consider that trivial – but YMMV :)

(that's why I tried to keep the change as minimal as possible)

Pretty sure trivial == grammar/spelling in this case

Basically, it's 1 formatting and 2 added lines. As we say, we should do: lists all your requirements explicitly :)

OK, do the ">" then :)

But anyway, throwing it on Meta gives other folks a chance to make it better before we commit to something first.

Yupp, right. Shall I do it? New question – or the one we had for this a year ago or so?

New question would probably be better

That article hasn't been touched for over a year

@Izzy done

:)

@Undo Thanks! :) Looking …

Wonderful! A little step for the editor – a big … oops :)

@Undo Will do!

@Undo Done. Shut pop-up here anytime soon :)

Waiting …

Still waiting …

Ah! There it comes :)