-3
\$\begingroup\$

I voted to migrate this question to Stack Overflow, but it seems I was the only one:

https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/111092/set-adt-union-assistance

  1. it is off-topic here on Code Review
  2. it is on-topic on Stack Overflow

Why is it not a candidate for migration?

Can a moderator please migrate it then instead?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I wouldn't have thought it was in a state to go on SO when it's a bit unclear. The OP doesn't explain very clearly what their output is or should be. (it's not a language I use a lot so I might be mistaken with that) \$\endgroup\$ – SuperBiasedMan Nov 18 '15 at 12:18
5
\$\begingroup\$

I'd consider it to be a poor candidate for migration, with my main concern being quality. Specifically,

  • The author didn't bother to write the question clearly. It takes a lot of effort to guess that the two input arrays are numbers and ages, and the output is union.
  • It's not clear why the union of two arrays would be a String. And what type are the two input arrays? It doesn't say at all.
  • union is never defined or initialized.
  • Is union the value to be returned, or is it an instance variable to be populated as a side-effect?
  • The one-based indexing in for(int index = 1; index <=numbers.length; index++) is a sign that the author has no experience with arrays in Java.
  • The inner loop for(int contents =0; contents<=pointer; pointer++) is infinite.

I'm all for helping aspiring programmers, but this question is nowhere near being answerable on Stack Overflow for the above reasons. It's closer to being a write-my-code request than I'm-puzzled-by-this question. I wouldn't upvote it on Stack Overflow, and therefore I wouldn't have chosen to migrate it, had it been brought to my attention at the time.

Furthermore, it turns out that the author had requirements that were not laid out in the question. It looks like homework to me.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Until recently, there were no-downvotes on the SO question, there are still no close-votes. I presume that means the question is quite clearly on-topic on Stack Overflow. Additionally, apart from the first point, all the other points you make are things that Stack Overflow is supposed to work with, right? Then again, depending on who you listen to (shog9, etc.) you are supposed to migrate often and let the target site sort things out. It seems Stack Overflow is happy with the question. \$\endgroup\$ – rolfl Nov 18 '15 at 18:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ @rolfl I'd consider a referral rather than a migration, due to those issues. \$\endgroup\$ – 200_success Nov 18 '15 at 18:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ Additionally, the current +3 answer on stack-overflow makes it clear that the question is, in fact, answerable, and valuable there. \$\endgroup\$ – rolfl Nov 18 '15 at 18:08
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Good answer, but it's still a crap question. \$\endgroup\$ – 200_success Nov 18 '15 at 18:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ @rolfl: Also, you should mention that you answered it while still here, and took one upvote with you over there. \$\endgroup\$ – Deduplicator Nov 18 '15 at 23:22
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Deduplicator it was all just to make a point. I wouldn't have migrated it either - it's essentially a gimmeh-teh-codez question and migrating it violates the don't migrate crap rule. \$\endgroup\$ – Mathieu Guindon Nov 19 '15 at 0:18
4
\$\begingroup\$

For the record, in retrospect, I agree it was a mistake on my part to migrate that question. It's a gimmeh-teh-codez style, crap question, violating our golden rule of "don't migrate crap", period.

In my defense, I'm fairly active on SO these days, and as such, I'm used to seeing a lot of far worse crap, which dulls my crap-sense a little bit, leading to such oversight. I'll be more careful. (Normally I am. As a matter of fact, I migrated extremely few questions so far.)

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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