What more is expected of this question? It's not any less detailed than this one, nor is its answer any more thorough than this.

It appears some users expect "more text" that only gives appearance of "more detail" but doesn't add any real substance to the question. The only difference in two linked questions I see is, one is easy - but difficulty isn't valid close reason.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ What exactly is your goal on the Code Review site? The site is for improving ones coding abilities, but that doesn't seem to be your goal. \$\endgroup\$
    – pacmaninbw
    Oct 28 '20 at 14:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ @pacmaninbw I shared a means to a desired end that some will find useful - if that's bad, then downvote this, as it too makes no attempt to "improve coding abilities". \$\endgroup\$ Oct 28 '20 at 19:31
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ "I shared a means to a desired end that some will find useful"... but did not describe what that desired end is/was. \$\endgroup\$
    – rolfl
    Oct 28 '20 at 21:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ At the very least, we have no idea what the code does. \$\endgroup\$
    – Parekh
    Nov 16 '20 at 15:46

You have just asked a question on Meta that:

  • has a title that is clear, specific, and concise
  • has an introduction that provides great context, and examples of what your expectations are based on
  • it provides information on why you did what you did, and what you expected the results to be.

In short, it's a reasonably well formulated, and presented question.

Why did you not do that with the question on the main site?

Your title is "Array-indexed sum" ..... what does that even mean? How can we tell if the code is "right"?

Your question body has no description of what the code is supposed to accomplish, or details on what successful output should look like.

Your request is "can it be faster?", nothing wrong with that, but.... it does not add any context for what the code actually does.

Finally, what does "An Algorithm?" mean?

In short, you put far more effort in to complaining about the actual question, than preparing the question itself.

Added my -1 to the question as well.

When you add more context to your question, feel free to ping me by adding a comment to this post, and I'll go and remove my -1 and perhaps upvote it too.

  • \$\begingroup\$ 1) the code is "right" if it's faster while executing the same operation 2) "what it does" - so basically write out loud what anyone competent can infer from code: "two for loops, drawing indices from 2D array..." 3) what can an "algorithm" mean besides "more efficient logic to same task"? The question is complete and anyone capable of answering it won't have trouble. My linked Q&A's also qualify for such criticisms, yet they were well-received - so maybe it's less about "lacks detail" and more about "I can't do this so it's bad". \$\endgroup\$ Oct 28 '20 at 19:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ The title is about the only thing worth improving, but that likely won't suffice so I'll pass. \$\endgroup\$ Oct 28 '20 at 19:28
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Hey @OverLordGoldDragon - Note, Code Review is about reviewing your code, and not writing new code. You say your code is "right". But provide no information on what "right" is supposed to mean. Unless you provide some additional corroborating information, that a reviewer can reference to determine whether your code actually does the job it is intended to do. \$\endgroup\$
    – rolfl
    Oct 28 '20 at 21:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ So why's this upvoted? \$\endgroup\$ Oct 29 '20 at 11:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ re: "right" So I am supposed to say that "faster" means less ticks on a clock? Or that it implicitly assumes "while giving the same output"? Maybe I should also clarify that the question's written in English. I'm afraid your critiques make no sense to me - just reinforcing my point that I am to fill the question with pointless blabber so others think it's "details". \$\endgroup\$ Oct 29 '20 at 11:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .