@feersum I think under the current approach the death configuration will start triggering heavily above a certain population size, which will give the same effect that you describe
The question wasn't about whether we should or should not track stack snippets, bugs, and new features. The question was how to organize them. That's the question I answered.
And it shouldn't really be a "feature request". It should be "I have a problem that I can't solve. Here is what I have done to attempt to solve it. How can I solve it?"
Doesn't that look like every other question on SE ever?
I was just saying that your casual "Feature requests belong in a new question." seems like a pretty big thing that I can't agree with despite the rest of your answer being perfectly reasonable.
By the way, your answer was the answer that suggested using answers as a place for feature requests. I can't believe that you are now giving me a hard time for this.
@Rainbolt at least, in that case they'd all be in one place and it wouldn't clutter meta. I was simply using the StackApps model, so it's not exactly "this isn't how SE works". I think I prefer your answer though.
still I think we have a different idea about feature request. say we've got "How can I generate a leaderboard for code golf challenges?" and someone posts a snippet that does exactly that. now I come along and think "it would be rad if the leaderboard also contained the language of each submisssion". I don't think there's a point in posting a new question "How can I generate a leaderboard with languages for code golf challenges?".
instead I'd rather just leave a "feature request" (in whatever form) for the old snippet. and that doesn't belong in a separate question I think.
Well, I think it does. Stack snippets should follow the single responsibility principle.
I don't know how to best communicate that I was not suggesting posting a new question with "Give me code please."
How do I illustrate to you all of the things that I was not suggesting?
You should adhere to the same Stack Exchange standards that every other question follows. Nowhere did I say otherwise.
Answer edited. I just added this: (I am not suggesting that you post "Give me code please." A feature request is a new problem in disguise. You should describe the problem and state what you did to try and solve it. In other words, follow normal Stack Exchange standards for asking good questions)
I'm also not sure why you are hung up on using that Stack Snippet.
Post the problem and what you have done to attempt to solve it.
The problem is that you need a leaderboard that can group by language. In your attempts to solve that problem, you tried to modify this other snippet. If you succeeded, then you should post Q&A style. If you failed, then you must have gotten stuck somewhere. Describe where you got stuck.
Because the entire point of posting snippets on meta is not help people write stack snippets, but to provide them so that not everyone has to reinvent the wheel. So, sure, I could take that snippet, and add the languages myself. Or I could request that to be added to the snippet on meta, so we've got a more useful go-to snippet in the future.
@Geobits The Sandbox is unique to PPCG and doesn't follow the SE format at all. It contains hundreds of answers that nobody has seen in months. I thought the idea of these snippets was to provide visibility. Am I wrong?
It is possible to migrate a question from one Stack Exchange site to another by closing, but if I have a question that I think is on-topic for multiple Stack Exchange sites, is it OK to post it on both (multipost)?
For example, I have a question that's earned me the tumbleweed badge on SO and I...
@Rainbolt No, not wrong about that. But many meta sites have their own "unique" questions that don't follow the traditional format. This proposed question would be one, if I'm understanding correctly.
So if you want to follow a non traditional format, you need to have a good reason for doing so. I outlined in my answer that new questions work fine for new problems (features if you want to call them that), and comments work fine for suggesting edits (bugs).
@Rainbolt The idea behind my meta post was "to collect these [snippets] on meta, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel for each new challenge." Which is not being helped if we're not trying to provide snippets that solve a given task as well as possible (potentially with configurable options).
@MartinBüttner You keep bringing up reinventing the wheel. When did I ever suggest reinventing the wheel? There is a close vote reason called "duplicate". I am for closing questions as a duplicate (assuming they are indeed a duplicate).
@Rainbolt in order to prevent reinventing the wheel, I would not want people to ask a new question if they would like a feature added to an existing snippet.
but you said, either it's too close, so it would be closed as a duplicate, which means the feature doesn't get added. or it would get a new answer, which would mean at least half the wheel was reinvented.
@Rainbolt but then we get a ton of similar snippets with a few different features. wouldn't it be much more useful if we managed to build a single snippet that can do all of those things and is configurable as to what you actually need?
@Rainbolt if you don't think that's a good idea, that's fine, but I think that you then should have answered my first question instead of answering my second question with a different premise.
@Lembik Maybe, but they do use it in docs. From Oracle, for example: "As shown, you can use the dot notation to invoke the new Rectangle's getArea() method to compute the area of the new rectangle."
@Rainbolt "to collect these on meta, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel for each new challenge." The entire point of my question is to do something that isn't necessarily in question/answer format. Otherwise I wouldn't have needed to ask in the first place.
How about I suggest a compromise. You maintain a single off-site repository for all snippets involving your enormous configurable leaderboard that has every option you could possibly want or not want. And you continue using Stack Exchange for what it was designed for. Answerers can merely suggest contributions to that repository or they can write their own if they choose to. If they choose to reinvent the wheel, you can't really complain about it.
@MartinBüttner I do not object to collecting problems and their solutions on meta. What is your issue again?
You (seem to) object to collecting and maintaining snippets on meta. The goal of my question is to have an easily accessible list of useful snippets (on meta). That will necessarily not result in a normal Q/A format. So it's not exactly collecting problems and solutions I'm asking for. It's collecting reusable solutions.
well I don't mind asking the question more generally like "How do I generate a leaderboard for code golf challenges?" but I think if we ask a new question for a slightly modified request instead of making the previous answer more flexible and reusable, even if it then goes beyond the scope of the question, we're really losing some potential here.
What potential have you lost? The plain leaderboard is still there. The leaderboard with grouping functionality is still there. They aught to be clearly labelled by their titles, and thus very easy to find.
because I think that a long list of similar snippets with slightly different features is less useful than having one standard snippet, which can (optionally) do all of those things and is used by everyone.
Compromise: Have a standard list of useful snippets, along with questions to perfect/enhance each one. Similar to what we do with "standard definitions."
I've given a reason why having separate questions would be useful. You have said that it would be detrimental, losing potential, and is less useful. You have yet to explain why.
To restate my two reasons: One) Having a separate question for "How can I group leaderboards by language?" would easily allow me to search for and find that question. Two) Someone may have a better solution that I haven't thought of that doesn't involve Stack Snippets at all.
@Martin I mean literally "How can I make a leaderboard snippet?" (or close). The "best" answer there can be compiled into a "Useful Snippets" post as an answer (which could be updated as new/better snippets appear).
Yeah, I think we can stop the discussion here. I can't seem to convey why find that reposting similar snippet is reinventing the wheel, which I think is less useless than collaboratively working on one powerful snippet. And I don't know how else to try to convey it, so I'll just give up and let people vote on meta.
@Geobits oh, so you mean like a mix of Peter's and Rainbolt's posts?
I haven't read Peter's carefully. I mean almost exactly the way Standard Definitions works. Somebody posts "What does input mean?", and the best/accepted answer goes in the Std Def post.
One improvement would be to explicitly link back to the dedicated question in the "standard" post's answer. That way if someone sees it there and can improve, they know where to do it.
@MartinBüttner I noticed that you retracted your upvote after getting into a discussion here in chat. Did you reach a new realization, did you misunderstand something the first time you read it, or was that simply out of spite?
@Rainbolt I reached the realisation that I misunderstood your position, and I'm not convinced it actually addresses my initial question. Hence I retracted it (instead of, say, turning it into a downvote).
You restated your question and I answered it in a very straightforward manner. Does my answer on meta not reflect my position as stated here in chat?
It's one thing to disagree with me. That's fine. It's another thing altogether to dismiss my entire answer as something that doesn't even address your question. That's infuriating.
I very clearly outlined the organization I thought was best. I even chose from the list presented in your question. How does that not answer your question?
As far as I could tell it answers the second question on the premise that we're collecting problems and solutions. But my question first asks whether we want to collect only solutions. So if my understanding of your answer is correct it ignores the first question and answers the second question on a different premise. I might still misunderstand it though, so I'll re-read it later, but I currently really need to get on with something other than PPCG.
I went to cite an answer I had written to a puzzle here, called Hourglass. The question has several answers and I found it was deleted.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1683857/
It had 51 upvotes, and 13 answers. The question text for those without privileges to read it was:
The challen...
The first question as stated on meta is "do we object to collecting snippets". My answer clearly does not object.
You are now adding extra criteria: "do we object to collecting snippets and not problems"
It's not implied either. Your second bullet point even suggests collecting problems: "Post one meta question per snippet task"
@MartinBüttner So if you want to edit your meta post to suggest collecting snippets only, then you can ask if anyone objects to that, and you can get rid of your second bullet point entirely because it would make no sense following the first question. Anyone who chooses bullet point number two is pretty much falling into a trap.
@Rainbolt I'm sorry if my question was unclear. I wouldn't have asked if anyone objects to collecting problems and solutions. I only mentioned only the solutions for a reason. Likewise, bullet point was intended to mean that we some sort of dummy problem. Surely "Do we have an existing Stack Snippet which generates leaderboards for code golf challenges?" isn't an actual problem - as you said, it's way too specific to be a problem. It just provides a place to post the snippets as answers.
But if you read the question with a broader meaning, I'm fine with expanding the scope of the question …
If it has a unique solution, it's solvable by logic if you go many steps into the search tree. As the leading answer says: "This solver could not solve the puzzle completely by logic, this does not mean there is not a logical solution."
What limits are there on the transformations? I'm not sure what "number-swapping" means to you, but it seems to imply that I could generate any board ;)
I'd try math, though, unless it's been asked already.
Doorknob's post has controversial comments yet lots of upvotes, while mine only has a single controversial comment, but no upvotes. I'm ok with the outcome either way
@Rainbolt at least it's only a little creepy man for you... for me it's Erster Nutzer... which is not only annoyingly wide, it's also disturbingly German (I haven't used German software for years, so I have no idea when it picked up that name)
I went to cite an answer I had written to a puzzle here, called Hourglass. The question has several answers and I found it was deleted.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1683857/
It had 51 upvotes, and 13 answers. The question text for those without privileges to read it was:
The challen...
