# Missing Review Context on stand alone script

My question has been closed for Missing Review Context. I feel like I've had no support or explanation from the community.

The reason why it was closed is out of context. This is a script that works independently and it is not part of another project. The script is not subject to: Pseudocode, stub code, hypothetical code, obfuscated code, and generic best practices. It is functional and detailed code, which I want to be improved with regard to:

• Application of best practices and design pattern usage,
• Potential security issues,
• Performance, and
• Correctness in unanticipated cases.

After my question was closed I have verified, edited and added all the possible context to the question.

• It's probably not a good idea to lie or attack people when asking for your question to be reopened. Please edit this stuff out. – Peilonrayz Aug 5 at 14:20
• @Peilonrayz I think I am not attacking people who really should re-open the question, I think there are fair, professional and objective people here ... and also other types of people ... that do not interest me, but do harm to the community. – walter nunez Aug 5 at 14:30
• Bottom line, dumping a piece of code on reviewers isn't how things work. To have a well-received post, you need to present your code to reviewers, walk them through it, give them insight on the thought processes that resulted in the code being implemented as it is, and what makes you feel it can/should be improved. Reviewing code takes time, and that time will more likely be spent on questions that put a proportionate amount of effort in. "Please review this: {code dump}" gets closed not because people are trolling or being mean, but because context is critical for any meaningful review. – Mathieu Guindon Aug 5 at 18:02
• @MathieuGuindon because context is critical for any meaningful review. This is a personal criterion, not exposed in the comments of the publication ... it would be easier to understand with comments than to cast negative votes and closed questions. I think that's what comments are for, right? – walter nunez Aug 5 at 18:14
• @MathieuGuindon It is the difference in making a new person miserable or supporting him so that the community grows in quality. – walter nunez Aug 5 at 18:16
• And yet many walk into this community feeling entitled to a review of their completely out-of-context code, and violently react to any comment asking them to edit/clarify their post, making regular users feeling miserable for doing nothing more than helping to keep the site content on-topic and to have all unanswered questions as detailed as possible, so that every post ends up meeting the eyeballs it needs. A new user gets a single first post; site regulars have to help new users every day - some happily comply, a lot just erupt into nonsense and ad-hominem: there are 2 sides to that coin – Mathieu Guindon Aug 5 at 18:52
• @MathieuGuindon Of course the face of the coin that you describes would be 100% true, if users left objective comments, about their doubts, about why I should edit my question, or that you think my question is missing to be more readable or understandable. – walter nunez Aug 5 at 19:05
• @MathieuGuindon Instead they open votes to close the questions and leave negative votes that wao say a lot, or refer to a rule that the new user does not know how to apply the context to their own question ... that is trolling ... because in At that time, the user who owns the post has not commented, he can only look like strangers who raise a flag of knowledge use it to leave it on a shore, wao that professional... Need Go to Meta forum to review my Question to know What happen? – walter nunez Aug 5 at 19:07
• Downvotes are always on posts, never against users. And they're easily reversed as needed, as are close votes. Not a single regular has the time or inclination to "troll" new users, that is pure fabrication. Everyone here is more than happy to supply constructive links to meta discussions, like how to get the best value out of Code Review, which I heavily encourage you to read. Problems begin when the OP refuses to acknowledge something is off with their post, doesn't want to read any links, and thinks everyone is just out to get them. – Mathieu Guindon Aug 5 at 19:27
• We see so many off-topic questions per day that we sometimes neglect the comments a bit. I'll definitely admit to that. I'm absolutely sure there were left comments on your original question though. However, since comments are not forever (that's how they work on all Stack Exchange sites), it's quite hard for me to determine at this point if anything went wrong in the communication there. – Mast Aug 5 at 19:35
• There seems to be a misunderstanding of what purpose closing serves. "Closing" a question doesn't (shouldn't, anyway) mean it's the end of it: it protects you /the OP from the inevitable mess that occurs when a less-experienced reviewer comes along and provides an answer off code that is incomplete or missing context: while the post is "on hold", OP can freely edit/fix the code, add more information, all without risking to invalidate an answer. Once a post is edited into shape (ideally with a single edit), it enters the reopen review queue where people vote to reopen as appropriate. – Mathieu Guindon Aug 5 at 19:52
• – Mast Aug 5 at 20:01
• I'm just a user with access to a few more knobs and buttons than others, I don't work for Stack Overflow Inc. and while I do wholeheartedly agree with you on this, that would be something to request on the network-wide meta site meta.stackexchange.com. TBH I'm pretty sure it used to say "on hold", not sure why it no longer seems to be the case - there's probably a meta post announcing the change somewhere on Meta.SE... – Mathieu Guindon Aug 5 at 20:02
• @Mast your link is not the first i see when i join the comunity... I assure you that if it were ... there would not be all this conversation ... – walter nunez Aug 5 at 20:09
• @MathieuGuindon It used to be Closed, then it was On hold for the first 5 days, somewhere this year they overhauled the UI and changed basically everything again, somewhat around here. – Mast Aug 5 at 20:15

The banner you are seeing contains an explanation. You also got a comment from one of the users involved in closing your question that explicitly asks you to "elaborate what the instructions are to accomplish".

To phrase that in a little less complicated English:

We can see that you have some code. It seems to be doing what you want it to do. It's really difficult to understand what exactly you want by reading the code.

So you've been asked to explain better what the code does. It would probably help if you visually separated the expected output from how PHP would var_dump it. It also would probably help to put the output you expect into a "blockquote" to make clear that it's not the code you want reviewed.

As it is, your question is really hard to grasp when "just reading through it".

• The script contains 3 functions; which are commented and are those that should be reviewed. each function indicates what it does (is commented); even the name of the functions itself has a descriptive orientation. – walter nunez Aug 5 at 14:38
• all the code has been separated into parts, the content received by the POST request; the current output; and the Script (3 functions, example variables and function calls) just copy and paste into an index.php to test it, in other posts I have made they complain that I have not placed enough information, which in this case I have placed ... there is no remedy there are more excuses to close a question than to re-open it. – walter nunez Aug 5 at 14:42
• and just in case you haven't reviewed the post; It was updated as 5 times after being closed ... I no longer know what else to update that meets the personal criteria of those who closed it ... – walter nunez Aug 5 at 14:44
• say me if this request is out of context of the comunity: imgur.com/bn9bZ7V – walter nunez Aug 5 at 14:48
• @walternunez I've edited your question so it's easier to read and I still don't understand what your code is doing. Please can your describe what your code does in the English section, the more you (edit your question to) explain, the more likely we can re-open the question. – Peilonrayz Aug 5 at 14:59
• @Peilonrayz thank you. I will try to give a deeper explanation I hope you do not miss it. – walter nunez Aug 5 at 15:01
• @Peilonrayz Last update with sections of explanation and examples done. – walter nunez Aug 5 at 15:25

It seems to me that someone on this site, the moderators or whoever, should add a question template section on wikia or wherever on this site; when a new user enters it should be the first thing they review or find, and then understand how to ask objective questions that meet the necessary criteria to be received Code Review or the stackexchange section ... this to avoid that the site is filled with garbage and people who believe that by closing questions or giving negative votes you understand human beings.

In short, my post was closed because N number of people did not warm up the ability to explain to a new person what mistakes they were making in order to understand the post; It was necessary to go to the META forum in search of a solution.

After 14 editions, which met the objectives of the forum, my post did not meet the personal criteria of this N amount of People; until X Moderators verify the POST and format it and fix it to your liking.

I am not hostile; I am describing from my perspective what has happened with this post ... and I am not demanding a level of communication skill from user or moderators; I am asking you to transfer that level of communication that you expect before the first post ... because if I get here, I am new and will not communicate as you expect, but you do know that I am failing something, throw stones at me and bury my post is not the friendliest in a community.

• I agree with parts of this answer. However it has a clear lack of tact. It is possible to express disagreement in a manner that doesn't self escalate the situation into ad hominems. You're demanding a level of communication skills that you seem incapable of exerting yourself. Please try to be a bit more empathetic to those that moderate, it is hard. And it doesn't have to be made harder because you're being, lets face it, needlessly hostile. – Peilonrayz Aug 5 at 19:28
• @Peilonrayz I am not hostile; I am describing from my perspective what has happened with this post ... and I am not demanding a level of communication skill; I am asking you to transfer that level of communication that you expect before the first post ... because if I get here, I am new and will not communicate as you expect,but you do know that I am failing something, throw stones at me and bury my post is not the friendliest in a community. – walter nunez Aug 5 at 19:35
• Perhaps it was not your intention, but there's definitely a sense of hostility coming from your question and answer. I fully agree with Peilonrayz here that there are parts of your answer which are valuable and we can agree with, but I completely disagree with the tone it's presented with. Just like I very much disagree with the tone of the first revision of your meta question. – Mast Aug 5 at 19:43
• I understand you and I think it can be rude, but what do you expect from a person who hits you without knowing why? or who are the authors ... – walter nunez Aug 5 at 19:45