I come across posts that are irrelevant to the CodeReview site, and closing them would be the best choice, obviously. The close dialog has these options, where these texts are the headers:

  • duplicate of...
  • off-topic because...
  • unclear what you're asking
  • too broad
  • primarily opinion-based

Now if you go to off-topic option, the options are just sentences. For me, choosing an option there makes me read each to find the exact reason I'm closing the question - which takes time and effort.

I'm no UX expert here, but shouldn't these options in the off-topic selection also have the headers? Like this:

Requesting code to be written

Questions asking for code to be written...

Does not contain working code

Your question must contain working code for us to review...

Does not contain code to be reviewed

Questions must include the code you want reviewed...

Belongs to another site in the network

This question belongs on another site in the Stack Exchange network


Other (add a comment explaining what is wrong)

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Now that you mention it, I think this feature-request makes much sense. Although I guess it's not something that can be done for the Code Review site only, it probably needs a change for the entire Stack Exchange system. This is probably a better question for Meta Stack Overflow which is the meta site for the entire network. \$\endgroup\$ Feb 22, 2014 at 15:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SimonAndréForsberg It just so happens that I meet more irrelevant posts here. Anyways, flagging this for migration. \$\endgroup\$
    – Joseph
    Feb 22, 2014 at 16:22
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I have received feedback elsewhere stating that this could remain here. Feature requests, even ones not limited to the specific site, are okay on a per-Meta site. SE employees can still find them. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jamal
    Feb 22, 2014 at 18:45

1 Answer 1


The sentences are copied into the close-reason comment seen by the OP.

If this feature were implemented, then the new header-text too should be copied into the close reason seen by the OP (otherwise the people voting to close and the OP would not be reading the same thing).

I think this feature is unnecessary: by the time you've voted-to-close several times on the site, you (should have) read in detail and know what the various/available close reasons are.

One of the benefits of a header would be to clarify or summarize the close reason: but because it will be seen by the OP, editorial work should instead be put into making the close-reason sentence clear.

You can put formatting into the close reason; you can certainly put hyperlinks. Perhaps a format like,

Does not contain code to be reviewed. Please edit your question to include the code you want reviewed; see [link to the on-topic section of the Help] and/or [link to an associated FAQ topic on Meta].

In fact the reason summary is already highlighted, in all the current close-reason texts on this site (on the first line of each reason, within the first 3 words of the beginning of the line):

  • ... asking for code to be written ...
  • ... contain working code ...
  • ... include the code you want reviewed ...

It could hardly be clearer, IMO: to a person who is voting-to-close.

It could perhaps be made clearer to the OP (although that's not what you were asking about):

  • By adding a hyperlink to the Help and/or to a meta-FAQ;
  • By adding more text to the phrase, to make the criticism constructive or prescriptive; for example:
    • Ask on Programmers.SE
    • Ask on Stackoverflow.SE
    • Edit your question to include the code you want reviewed.
  • \$\begingroup\$ The entire idea of a header in the off-topic section is to make it easy to choose a reason. You wouldn't want to read every sentence just to choose. Also, each site on the network as different sets of reasons. StackOverflow has 7 off-topic options, CodeReview has 5. Don't expect anyone to remember the Nth choice on a specific site. \$\endgroup\$
    – Joseph
    Feb 26, 2014 at 11:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ The reasons for off-topic though need to be clearer, and I like that addition. \$\endgroup\$
    – Joseph
    Feb 26, 2014 at 11:28

You must log in to answer this question.

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