Timeline for How should we revisit our standard close reasons?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 27, 2018 at 13:06 | comment | added | Vogel612 | I dislike this suggestion (should be a new question, btw.) for a few reasons: 1. Not all languages have mature unit-testing frameworks 2. Code in languages with mature unit-testing frameworks may not be sufficiently decoupled to write unit-tests, but still be "the best" that OP can write. 3. We're regularly scraping near the upper bound of the character limit on posts (that was explicitly raised for us). Adding Unit-Tests to such large questions (that don't necessarily contain a lot of code) will generally take us over the limit. Questions will get needlessly large... | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 0:07 | comment | added | ben rudgers | No need to apologize. I understand where you are coming from. I just tend to oppose taking any StackExchange site in the direction of "increased expectations" and tend to favor "increased charity." Particularly in areas where new users are likely to run counter to expectations and in areas where experienced users may find themselves sometimes peeved...the best solution for peeves is to take a break from the site because it is supposed to be fun. | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 23:12 | comment | added | J_H | Oh, sorry, there must have been some implied "closing behavior" that I did not intend. I was just going a bit meta, looking at "improved close reasons would improve site quality", and taking that as a jumping off point to "improved submission expectations could improve site quality", in particular making submission expectations more clear could entice more reviewers to devote time to good reviews. | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 20:40 | comment | added | ben rudgers | I think many questions might be improved by additional information regarding the way inputs map to outputs. However, mandatory tests and fiddles is just a way to rationalize closing questions that a particular reviewer is disinclined to answer due to the amount of work involved. It's bureaucracy that would not improve the site. It's ok not to answer a question because it is not worth the effort. It is not ok to close one for that reason. | |
| Jan 19, 2018 at 18:15 | history | answered | J_H | CC BY-SA 3.0 |