14
\$\begingroup\$

So, I ran across this question. It would be a pretty good question except for one little detail: the OP doesn't want it reviewed.

... and am not looking for pure code improvements.

Also, in the comments from before it was migrated. (Here, "this site" refers to Programmers.)

@DocBrown- I'm not looking for code review. I want my algorithm to be reviewed. I posted it on this site, since it's likely that folks here can read and understand simple JS syntax used.

So, I'm of the belief that this is off topic because OP obviously isn't interested in making their code better. Nor does he want feedback about "Any and All Facets of the Code". They only want a better algorithm. To make matters worse, adding insult to injury, the only answer currently there does not address OP's concerns. Granted, it doesn't have to here. We're an odd bird of an SE like that. That's okay, but I don't think it's okay to do this to OP. It would have been better, in my opinion, to reject the migration and close it on Programmers. That wouldn't have been as insulting as knowing and saying you don't want to post on Code Review because X, and then having X happen after it was migrated here anyway.

So, am I missing something? Am I wrong here? Why was this question migrated here?


As a secondary kind of thing, I would like to remind people to at least acknowledge OPs concerns, even if you don't address them. It's only polite.

Hey, I know you asked about X, but I truthfully don't know. I did notice Y over here though.

We have a reputation for being nice. Let's keep it that way. Acknowledging OP's concerns goes a long way to taking the sting out of the disappointment of not getting the answer you're looking for.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I was hoping that @Flambino would review it by copying the cited existing answer. \$\endgroup\$ – 200_success Dec 14 '14 at 11:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ Fair enough I guess @200_success. Just keeping y'all honest and on your toes... Seeing this obviously upset me a bit. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Dec 14 '14 at 11:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Algorithm reviewing is also ontopic here so I don't see why it shouldn't be appropriate? \$\endgroup\$ – Jeroen Vannevel Dec 14 '14 at 13:22
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @JeroenVannevel because OP made it clear that they are not interested in improving "any and all facets" of the code. That makes it off topic in my eyes. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Dec 14 '14 at 13:48
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Code Review is a question and answer site for seeking peer review of your code. As long as an algorithm is written in code, the question seems to meet the requirement. Do note the question has been edited in the meantime. \$\endgroup\$ – Mast Dec 15 '14 at 21:10
2
\$\begingroup\$

I think it is still on-topic. I don't see OP's stance as not wanting a code review, I see it as OP expressing a desire to only have a specific portion of code reviewed, but he's required to post the rest of the code for context.

All of your other points are valid concerns and I too would like to encourage a focus on ensuring contributions are done for the sake of assisting OP as well as making sure the rules are followed. Frankly speaking, it's very off-putting if you only receive responses telling you to follow the rules better.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I can't say I'm convinced, but you have a fair point there. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Dec 22 '14 at 18:46
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I'd be more worried if we were all convinced of the same thing. \$\endgroup\$ – moarboilerplate Dec 22 '14 at 18:48

You must log in to answer this question.

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