I can understand that you want to close questions sooner, but I disagree that those two questions that @Mast mentioned were "littering the site" that bad.
@200_success Not self-delete, but mod-delete. Although if it's answered and closed I don't see a big point in deleting it.
@Mast That's not a comment, that's a close reason. What is the point in copy-pasting the exact words that show up in the close reason?
@πάνταῥεῖ How do you define "success"? What's successful to you? What would your dream outcome be of all this?
Also, FYI:
Personally I see nothing wrong with this question and I have reopened it (after it having previously gotten some reopen votes) — Simon Forsberg ♦22 mins ago
@Mast And how do you think they will feel about that comment once the question is closed and they see that you are using the exact same words in the comment as exist in the close reason?
@SimonForsberg I disagree, the code lacks context, is incomplete and the variables are not initialized; it's useful only to the OP, I as a c++ beginner couldn't learn anything from it because I'm not able to deduce their types... it's a guessing game
you should have waited with reopening it
This item is no longer reviewable. alecxe reviewed this 2 hours ago: Reopen Stephen Rauch reviewed this 3 hours ago: Leave Closed Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ reviewed this 3 hours ago: Leave Closed
@Mast I just want you to think about it. It's not Feeling Review, but people who post code here do have reasons. Personally, if it would happen to me I think I would feel disappointed that someone just copy-pasted the close-reason. Once the question is closed, such a comment doesn't add any value at all or any additional information to the OP.
@t3chb0t It had two reopen votes. When in doubt I prefer to lean on the site of keeping it open. Feel free to add a new close vote and/or start a discussion on meta if you disagree.
@Mast Toby also didn't reply to this comment, but might have been the person who upvoted it:
@TobySpeight It's OK. I'm sorry for saying that. The problem is that I was looking for advice about a pattern that is repeated multiple times in different contexts. That's why I wrote code to print a vector. This question is off-topic. — Kerndog735 hours ago
@TobySpeight Please can the people that down-voted the answers on that question because they're off-topic rather than because they are bad please vote on the merit of those questions, now that it has been re-opened.
@SimonForsberg this is exactly how it should work - questions should be comprihensible to any casual reader and contain enough information for them to make their own research - with this one however, this is not possible
Too many lousy questions that shouldn't be here stay around, so it's harder on the reviewers to find the answer-worthy questions. I want to make it easier on the reviewers, always have, that's why we hunt down what needs fixing and hope OP fixes it.
@Simon I agree with @Mast. At SO we've seen that evolving amount of VLQ questions over years and with increasing popularity of the site. That's why we engage here to prevent the same for CR.
There does seem to be a flood of completely off-topic "fix it for me" questions at the moment. I guess that in many places, it's the point in the academic year when the first exercises are falling due. Please let's do what we can to welcome the good questions, improve the borderline questions, and expunge the unsalvageable ones.
But we only need to draw attention here to things that might attract answers before they reach site standard.
The rest should be fine through the standard queue mechanism
@SimonForsberg I disagree - Elegantly exclude part of an operation from the last iteration in a loop lacks some of the basic essentials for a question (and explicitly says in the text words to the effect of "my real code is different). But I don't want to get into a revert war, so I'll just duck out of this one now.
I think there's a quite good question behind it, and I'd love for it to be allowed to escape from its cocoon and fly like the butterfly it wants to be.
@SimonForsberg Looks like lacks concrete context for me, also the OP didn't explain what specifically they want to have improved with their code. Probably homework.
> Given an array A, with dimension N, 1<=N<=100000, A[N] within range of [-100000, 100000]. At first there is a pointer at position K (in the beginning K=0), and M=A[K], and we say the pointer will jump to position A[K+M], and call this a "jump of a pawn`. If at any moment, the pointer jumps out of the array, we must return the steps of jumps it takes. If it will never jump out, return -1.
@SimonForsberg Terse at least. I've read it a couple of times before VTC and read it even more times now, and the block of text is finally making some sense.
We have an array, and the pointer will jump. If it jumps out, tell how it got out. It will jump to a position equal to the old + whatever value is in the current position.
If it doesn't jump out, -1.
If it does, return amount of steps required.
Worthy of a downvote? Definitely. Worthy of a VTC? You got me in doubt now.
How much is sufficient.
No explanation about the approach, at least. It's not exactly self-explanatory code.
@200_success OP probably barely tested the code. Funny enough that's another grey area for close-reason territory.
I agree that specific question has code so bad I'm hard pressed to come up with a test case which would pass, so closing it seems appropriate. The code is absolutely not ready for review.
But had OP provided such test-case, I couldn't see a reason to close it based on our current rules.
Depends on how blatantly broken it is. The Al Gore mail question yesterday failed on the given test case, so I considered it off-topic. The Connect 4 post that I asked to reopen earlier actually fails to detect diagonal wins, but appears to work for horizontal and vertical wins, so I consider it passable. This Hangman seems not to work for any word, so off-topic.
The progress so far...
This room has been ongoing for a little more than two days now. In this time, there's been 24 requests to close and 1 request to reopen.
Some questions had comments that were just copy-paste of the close reason. I consider this not being helpful because of a few reasons:
...
If some of you down-voted this question I would like you to revisit those votes:
first time using Code Review, although I have been active on StackOverflow, hope I'm in the right place.
I am putting together Excel VBA code that using information from various columns on a worksheet to search for a document on a company intranet site, and save the document as a PDF, then move ...
@Mast I usually do roll back such edits, but this one was slightly problematic as I'd asked if it was correct before the answer was posted (when it might have been okay to correct it).
When I was a moderator, my philosophy was to close questions swiftly, with the hope that they could be fixed and reopened as soon as possible. I hope that this initiative helps the community to do the same.
@SimonForsberg I believe it's a bit too early to judge about a progress. On the other hand I probably announced the room a bit too early here also. Though I wanted to address a broader audience to make them aware of. Just give us a little bit more time to improve everything. — πάντα ῥεῖ1 min ago
@rene who's one of the major initiators of the SOCVR made me aware of those things in the early days of that room was setup.
@πάνταῥεῖ a meta post, chat events, boilerplate comments you can leave under relevant meta posts (when they happen, so don't go commenting back to the future), write relevant meta answers where you mention the room, add a link to it in your about me, keep the room alive with either discussion or relevant meta posts. See how this room struggled in its early 6 to 8 weeks./months.
Folks: small mod note here. Comments are not a chatroom. The sheer volume of comments suggests that we should discuss this answer somewhere that's more suited to discussion. Thanks! — Vogel612 ♦3 mins ago
@πάνταῥεῖ Care what you wish for :)
Attention isn't necessarily Aufmerksamkeit in the good sense
@t3chb0t Code Review is not a site only for beginners. If you as someone not familiar with a language do not understand what the question is about, you should not VTC
@Vogel612 Well, I am aware CM mods and Network wide mods where made aufmerksam. I still believe that everything here is all within the policies and rules, and their asses are safe ;-)
@Vogel612 @Shog9's response was pretty cool as always IMO.
I am not raising calls for torches and forks, just installing a better forum (and yes for that cases it is) to better moderate possibly off-topic questions at the SE Code Review Q&A repository.
@Vogel612 Appreciate to see you here joining the discussion of course. May be you have some gifts to leave for my already poor Meta announcement.