1
\$\begingroup\$

Questions about isolated code lacking context are closed as 'missing review context.' However, I have a question that, if another piece of code were part of, would count as review context. Suppose I rewrote that specific piece of code and want a review but don't want to upload the whole code again because I want the new question to focus exclusively on a specific part. Can a link to the old question count as 'review context?'

\$\endgroup\$
8
  • \$\begingroup\$ Sounds like something that could work depending on how you'd go about it. Wouldn't be the first time. Do you have something more specific in mind so we can check it more definitively.for you? \$\endgroup\$
    – Mast Mod
    Sep 18 at 4:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Mast In this question, there some original code, but I have since made an edit that, although does not modify the original code, includes some new relevant code (the octree_offset() function). But I have an alternative implementation of the octree_offset() function. Could I make a new comparative-review question of the new and old octree_offset() functions, and link the original question for context? \$\endgroup\$ Sep 18 at 4:14
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'll have time for a full answer in 12h or so, but on first glance that looks fine. It may be better to remove the update from revision 8 and use that as the start of your new question, with a link back to the old one for context. Feel free to add a link to the new question in your old one as well. Essentially you're asking a more specialised follow-up question. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mast Mod
    Sep 18 at 4:19
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Here's the FAQ on follow-up questiona. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mast Mod
    Sep 18 at 4:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Mast When I made that edit, I wasn't entirely sure what it should have been. I was in doubt between edit, self-answer, and follow-up question. \$\endgroup\$ Sep 18 at 4:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ "Can a link to the old question count as 'review context?'" Some people will completely ignore the link to the old question and VTC your question anyway. \$\endgroup\$
    – Peilonrayz Mod
    Sep 18 at 5:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Peilonrayz Even if I put underline it with - characters to make it big? \$\endgroup\$ Sep 18 at 5:59
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @user16217248 Even if you make the font size 10000px some people will still exhibit temporary blindness. If you want to see if moderators should have the power to tell people temporary blindness isn't a valid reason to close as MRC, then you should change your question from "can" to "should", and the tag from support to discussion. \$\endgroup\$
    – Peilonrayz Mod
    Sep 18 at 6:04

1 Answer 1

0
\$\begingroup\$

What you're effectively asking is whether it's ok to post a follow-up question which uses the original questions as context, so you won't have to repeat yourself.

While questions should stand on their own for all kind of reasons, in practice links towards other post on the network get somewhat more leeway. Links towards questions on the same site even more so. After all, they are easier to view, safer to view and less likely to rot compared to the average outbound link.

Will everyone gladly follow links? No. There is some risk involved with regards to reduced likelihood of getting answers. Do not rely on links too heavily. However, considering follow-ups have been posted often enough before (we even have a FAQ dedicated to it) and some projects even split up in 2-4 parts to focus on different parts of their project in different questions (with varying degrees of success, it doesn't always work out well), there's hardly a rule against it. The FAQ provides some guidance on what a question should contain to avoid being a total disaster. While a single follow-up is usually ok, there is such a think as too many follow-ups.

Putting as much as possible behind a link is not always the best choice, not at all, but there is no rule against keeping some of it in an older question. The more related they are, the better. Stray too far and you'll get in a grey area attracting votes to close while reducing the chance on an answer.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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