Sometimes I stumble upon follow-up questions, where code is being posted again after having gone through a review (or two).

Examples of possible sets of follow up questions:

Related meta questions:

How should a follow-up question be posted properly?

How to deal with follow-up questions?

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Is is just co-incidence that all these questions are from the same user? Are there other examples? \$\endgroup\$
    – rolfl
    Commented Nov 26, 2013 at 16:17
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @rolfl I believe there are more examples but I haven't kept links to them. When the data explorer works for Code Review, perhaps a query or two can help in finding such questions. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 26, 2013 at 16:23

2 Answers 2


I think that such question should clearly state that it is a follow-up question to a previously asked question.

A good follow-up question should include, in my opinion:

  • Which question it is a follow-up to
  • What changes has been made in the code since last question
  • Why a new review is being asked for

If a question does not include (at least some of) these things, I think that we should close it as a duplicate (or at least give it a down-vote)

There are also some things you should note if you are posting several follow-ups

In addition to the above, each follow-up question should be a good question also by itself.

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Yes I think it's a valid follow up question from same user if he/she learned from the previous review and improved his/her code accordingly. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 26, 2013 at 21:05
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @doug65536 I am sorry that you feel that way because you haven't got any answers in the last 24 hours on your follow-up question. I believe that the fact that some questions get little attention is not related to whether or not it was a follow-up post. You can try improving the quality of your question, ask in chat if anyone can look at your question, or add a bounty to your question. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 6, 2016 at 9:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SimonForsberg Yeah, my bad. I realized that I had mis-tagged the question as C++14, probably watched by a lot fewer users watching than C++. Nothing in the question was particularly C++14 related. It had a very low "views" count though, which misled me to believe that it was being ignored. \$\endgroup\$
    – doug65536
    Commented May 6, 2016 at 10:51

Everything that Simon wrote. Additionally, you can help readers of the original question find your improved version:

  • Include a link to the original question. This will ensure that each question appears in the other one's Linked Questions list (in the right-hand column, for the current default presentation).
  • Accept one of the answers to the original question. This is a strong hint that you believe that version has been sufficiently reviewed now.

Be prepared for a follow-up review to take longer: the obvious deficiencies having been addressed, reviewers need to spend longer digging further below the surface to find improvements to suggest. And those who reviewed version 1 may intentionally hold back before answering, to allow other reviewers to give different perspectives.


You must log in to answer this question.

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