13
\$\begingroup\$

While looking at a question, I saw a list of other related questions that had several meaningless titles:

  • How can I make this code more elegant
  • Can I make this C# for-loop more efficient?
  • How to refactor a verbose datatype?
  • How can I improve this OOP design? Is it even valid?
  • How can I make this C# code better so it more closely follows DDD principles? Am I using factory correctly?
  • How to refactor C# class to meet SOLID priniciple

Should I edit these titles to make them explain what the code is actually doing? Is this something that is beneficial to this site?

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ You may want to also add a specific point about old questions that have no answers. That may make a difference. Good question. \$\endgroup\$
    – rolfl
    Apr 27, 2015 at 16:53
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Please, please do so. I have given many downvotes to such posts and I would love the opportunity to finally take them back. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jamal
    Apr 27, 2015 at 17:07
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Apparently worth editing new old titles too!! \$\endgroup\$
    – rolfl
    Apr 27, 2015 at 23:47

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
15
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, please help bring any post that you find up to standards, as if they were posted today. Old posts do resurface in unexpected ways — for example, as you have observed, they may be recommended as related posts — and their presence may set a bad example. By the Broken Window Theory, any bad example will likely inspire more posts of lower quality.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Applying a refactoring mindset to CR? Sweet. :) \$\endgroup\$
    – h.j.k.
    Apr 29, 2015 at 0:02
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @h.j.k. That's what makes Code Review one of the best Stack Exchange sites. Our users care about quality. It's a self-selecting crowd. \$\endgroup\$
    – 200_success
    Apr 29, 2015 at 0:26

You must log in to answer this question.

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