4
\$\begingroup\$

From the FAQ:

I'm confused! What questions are on-topic for this site?

Simply ask yourself the following questions. To be on-topic the answer must be yes to all questions:

...

3. Is it actual code from a project rather than pseudo-code or example code?

So, I flagged this question, since it is clearly example code with no real purpose, with a message reading:

Off topic: "Is it actual code from a project rather than pseudo-code or example code?" OP is unresponsive to requests for further information in comments.

But my flag was declined with the boilerplate "no evidence" message.

What am I missing here?

Update: the OP has now responded to comments, confirming that it is example code.

| | | | | |
\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

This is a bit of an edge case, but I'm not sure it is example code with no real purpose.

The question is poorly written (and everyone is welcome to improve it by editing!), but the OP does state the following:

one friend of mine said it's difficult to read, but it works

This implies that the code

  • is part of a real project and
  • satisfies the requirements ("works").

Questions can be on topic even if the code they contain is not particularly useful.

Moderator intervention should be reserved for special circumstances. I'd recommend we let the community members with sufficient reputation for voting to close decide this matter.

| | | | | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The net effect of this code is it alerts "bellash." Surely a proper review would not be something like "you can rewrite this as alert("bellash")." How would you go about reviewing this code? Another question: what do you consider to be "special circumstances?" Not unreviewable code, I take it. \$\endgroup\$ – Dagg Apr 27 '13 at 18:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ Also, what about all the messages next to the radio buttons on the flagging form? Those seem to be options for general cases, not "special circumstances." Are you suggesting that those should not be used, or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "special circumstances?" \$\endgroup\$ – Dagg Apr 27 '13 at 19:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Dagg 1. I'd mention the comment clutter (closing braces and commented-out code) and (as you did in your comment) the unnecessary wrapping of alert and usage of push/pop. There probably isn't much more to review, but this seems like enough points for a useful answer to me. \$\endgroup\$ – Adam Apr 28 '13 at 7:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Dagg 2. This is not unreviewable, it's just a somewhat uninteresting question (though still on topic). Moderators should step in when the community can not handle a problem by itself. This is a problem the community can definitely handle by itself (by voting to close). \$\endgroup\$ – Adam Apr 28 '13 at 7:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Dagg 3. Yes, that's a misunderstanding. The flag function should only be used for content that requires moderator intervention, which this is not, so your flag was declined. This changes nothing about the fact that when you do flag something, of course a reason has to be given. \$\endgroup\$ – Adam Apr 28 '13 at 7:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Dagg, it should be noted that flagging for off-topic questions has been tolerated largely due to low traffic making it hard to actually close. However, this is ceasing to be the case. Questions are now regularly closed without moderator intervention, so if possible just vote to close. \$\endgroup\$ – Winston Ewert Apr 29 '13 at 2:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @codesparkle, the OP of that question has left a comment confirming that the code was example code. Does this change your answer at all? The implication is now that this isn't part of a real project, and whatever he was referring to that "satisfies the requirements" was some other, similar code. To me, this seemed highly probable from looking at the code (push and immediate pop, alerting a one-word message), but now that we have direct confirmation, I'd like to hear your take on it. It certainly seems to me that it should be closed, per the FAQ. \$\endgroup\$ – Dagg Apr 29 '13 at 18:57

You must log in to answer this question.

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