I shared a link to Code Review on Facebook and noticed what the description said about our beloved site:

Q&A for peer programmer code reviews

enter image description here

I got the feeling that this includes questions about Code Reviews, which is not on-topic here but on Programmers. So I was thinking: How can this be improved?

I am suggesting that this should be changed to something like this:

Q&A for getting reviews on your own working code

This simple line incorporates two important things for on-topic questions:

  • The code should be your own
  • The code should be working

This is just a draft of course, other suggestions are welcome.

Consider this post a feature-request to change the wording of this text.


So, the short description can be changed, but:

  • it has to start with Q&A for .....
  • it has to be approved by the SE folk.
  • it has to "not suck" in order to be approved.

It is something we should be happy with, and we should get it right, I don't want to have to ask to have it changed again.

  • \$\begingroup\$ What description are you talking about? The tour says "Code Review is a question and answer site for sharing code from projects you are working on for peer review." \$\endgroup\$ Jan 30, 2014 at 21:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @200_success go to the CR home page, and look at the og:description meta-field in the HTML. This is being used by Facebook for the link description. \$\endgroup\$
    – amon
    Jan 30, 2014 at 21:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @200_success Also here for example. \$\endgroup\$
    – ChrisW
    Jan 30, 2014 at 22:47

2 Answers 2


Simon suggested,

Q&A for getting reviews on your own working code

Looking at the short descriptions for other sites, they all start with:

Q&A for 'type of person'

To be similar our should not say "... for reviews": it should say "... for software developers", or "... for programmers". 'Software developers' is a bit too formal or professional so I suggest,

Q&A for programmers "sharing code from projects you are working on for peer review".

The quoted portion of the text above is taken from the the About page.

The above is not necessarily too long, for example compared with some from other sites:

  • Databases

    Q&A for researchers and developers who explore the principles of a system through analysis of its structure, function, and operation

  • Statistics

    Q&A for people interested in statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, and data visualization

Editing the above to resolve the 3rd person ("programmers") versus 2nd person ("you are working on"):

Q&A for programmers to share selections from their own source code for peer review.

The About page doesn't say that code needs to be "working": perhaps it should. I'm not sure how best to describe that:

  • ... from their own working source code ...
  • ... from their own finished source code ...
  • ... from their own functioning source code ...
  • ... from their own completed source code ...
  • ... from their own polished source code ...
  • ... from their own deliverable source code ...
  • ...?

I like Simon's suggestion better than the About page: "getting reviews on" is better than "sharing for review". So:

Code Review

Q&A for programmers to get peer reviews of their finished source code.

Looking through the short descriptions for other sites I don't think we can get too pedantically specific/restrictive/exclusive; the descriptions are meant to be attractive, not off-putting; for example StackOverflow's is just, "Q&A for professional and enthusiast programmers".

If you want to add detail they would rather you describe the type of person (community) than the type of code (defining on- and off-topic).

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ "Finished source code" might not be accurate. There's nothing wrong with posting source code that you're still working on.. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 31, 2014 at 18:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree with lol.upvote, get rid of the "finished" and it's pretty good. \$\endgroup\$
    – ChrisWue
    Feb 1, 2014 at 10:31
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Is there any other synonym for the adjective, or a temporal clause (e.g "after") hat can be added gracefully? Something to imply that code must have been written (not just sketched) before review, and that asking for new features and bug-fixes is off-topic? I agree it's pretty good even without the "finished". \$\endgroup\$
    – ChrisW
    Feb 1, 2014 at 10:39

I am in favour of:

Q&A for improving your code - working code working better

  • \$\begingroup\$ Short answers FTW! \$\endgroup\$ Apr 11, 2014 at 19:47

You must log in to answer this question.

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