7
\$\begingroup\$

In creating a MVCE for my code review (I cannot directly post my code for issues of legality, not to mention there's cruft in there that isn't necessary) I left an important part of the performance enhancements out, as noted by the first answer. I commented that his/her suggestion would have been helpful except I had already implemented it and its omission was an error. My edit was rolled back with a comment saying I wasn't to implement feedback in my code (which makes sense) but I re-instituted it with an explanation that I was correcting an error in the original question--not with the code itself.

On top of that, maybe I'm overreacting but I feel that a moderator then locking the post with the warning "I suggest you play along" is threatening and completely inappropriate.

Am I totally wrong? I want to play by the rules but I feel that the way I originally asked the question was just going to waste my and everyone else's time until the error was corrected.

Speed up performance of nested for loops to get all related format of all Authors' Books

Note: The original suggestion was a good, but obvious, answer to the question. I can't imagine anyone bothering to give more feedback before I implemented one of the top methods of improving Django performance.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 9
    \$\begingroup\$ Note: This situation is exactly why we discourage people from posting pseudo/example code. \$\endgroup\$ – Kaz Jun 20 '17 at 19:05
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Understandable but not an option for me. \$\endgroup\$ – thumbtackthief Jun 20 '17 at 19:06
15
\$\begingroup\$

My edit was rolled back with a comment saying I wasn't to implement feedback in my code (which makes sense) but I re-instituted it with an explanation that I was correcting an error in the original question--not with the code itself.

If I understand correctly, you already had the code that was suggested in the answer, so from your perspective, you're not implementing a feedback in the answer, you're just replacing the code with what you already had yourself, right?

To be precise, the reason for rolling back your edit is that it invalidates the answer that was already written based on the original version of your code. From the perspective of the answerer and other readers, it's not relevant that you actually had the better version of your code all along. What's relevant is that somebody took the effort to review what you posted and wrote an answer. If you apply your edit, the answer won't make much sense anymore. The answer would have to be substantially reworked, or deleted. That wouldn't be fair to the answerer, would it?

On top of that, maybe I'm overreacting but I feel that a moderator then locking the post with the warning "I suggest you play along" is threatening and completely inappropriate.

Let me quote the exact comment that you are referencing:

Our rule prohibiting modification of the code in the question after an answer has been posted is quite strict; otherwise, there would be confusion over exactly what code we are reviewing. You got helpful advice out of the one answer that has been posted so far, so I suggest that you play along, even if the question you posted was not perfect in your eyes. Until you acknowledge the no-modification rule, this question will remain locked — no further answers or voting will be allowed.

I assure you that this wasn't meant to be threatening. By the "play along" phrase, I think he simply meant that he understands your situation that you didn't really use help from the answer (you already had that code), but since we don't want to be unfair with the answerer, there is no perfect solution here, and the least bad solution is to let your question as it originally was.

Am I totally wrong? I want to play by the rules but I feel that the way I originally asked the question was just going to waste my and everyone else's time until the error was corrected.

For one thing, it was you who posted code that doesn't reflect reality. And the answer was posted more than 12 hours later, so it's not like there was a very short window to make the necessary corrections. I'm afraid you should accept some responsibility here.

As for the usefulness of the question. You have received a vote, somebody cared to answer, and the answerer received votes as well, so it seems to me it's already useful. I would suggest to accept the answer and move on.

I hope this answers your questions and calms your concerns.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Well, I can't accept any answer since it's locked. Thank you for your reasoned response. You mostly have it correct, except for the fact that the answer contained other helpful suggestions, and I commented on the one in question (which sure, was my fault for leaving it out in the first place. I was trying to correct my own error). I still don't think that language is appropriate from a moderator, especially toward someone who--based on reputation--is probably fairly new to the site. \$\endgroup\$ – thumbtackthief Jun 20 '17 at 18:14
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ @thumbtackthief I trust that you understood the explanations, so I unlocked the post now. I understand that you perceived the moderator's comment inappropriate. I can assure you that we constantly try to be civil. No harm was meant. \$\endgroup\$ – Stop ongoing harm to Monica Jun 20 '17 at 18:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ I appreciate it. Across the board, though, some moderators do not seem to be trying very hard to be civil. Something to look into. Thank you for your help and your explanations. \$\endgroup\$ – thumbtackthief Jun 20 '17 at 18:35
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ @thumbtackthief I'd just like to remind you that one option that you have is to post a follow-up question, now one with your corrected and improved code from the previous answer. \$\endgroup\$ – Simon Forsberg Jun 20 '17 at 19:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SimonForsberg Thank you but this has all left a very bad taste in my mouth and I'm just going to try to muddle through it myself. I tried deleting the question but was unable as it already had an answer (understandable) \$\endgroup\$ – thumbtackthief Jun 20 '17 at 19:28
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @thumbtackthief I'm sorry it turned out like this. You're welcome to write a little something for yourself (so that you own the rights to that code) and present it to reviewers for the real CR experience (see community-challenge for some ideas). Err on the safe side, always post your code online. "MCVE"s, snippets stripped of context and boiled down to one specific potential issue do well on Stack Overflow, but aren't exactly the best fit for CR; reviewers are free to comment on anything, because they're your other eyes - omitting "irrelevant code" is counter-productive! \$\endgroup\$ – Mathieu Guindon Jun 21 '17 at 2:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Mat'sMug Thank you, but I had one specific problem I had to address. I made a mistake in deleting too much and tried to set it right, and that upset people. No matter; moderator is still coming after me and I think it's best that I just leave this site. It's disappointing how one bad apple can ruin things. \$\endgroup\$ – thumbtackthief Jun 21 '17 at 3:08
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @thumbtackthief i'm just a regular user here, but ive been reading through this thread (the conversation between you and various mods) and it really all seems like a civil, normal discussion to me. I understand the initial misunderstanding may have soured things a little, so can I suggest taking a little respite and then taking another look at the conversation? This site really is a good one and in my experience I've found the moderators to be patient and helpful. I think it would be great to repost your updated code, and, as a python user, I will personally look over it if you want. :) \$\endgroup\$ – Joseph Farah Jun 21 '17 at 21:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ @JosephFarah Thank you but the original offending comments have already been deleted. I'm good. \$\endgroup\$ – thumbtackthief Jun 22 '17 at 13:03

You must log in to answer this question.

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