4
\$\begingroup\$

Currently, one of the two custom off topic reasons for CR is:

Questions must contain working code for us to review it here. For questions regarding specific problems encountered while coding, try Stack Overflow.

Technically, this does include questions that don't include code at all, or just link to it (latest example), but I think it's confusing in those cases, especially the emphasis on “working” (which makes sense in other cases).

Do you think it would be worth it to have a separate close reason for this case? Or should I just use the free-text option?

\$\endgroup\$
3
\$\begingroup\$

The proposed new close reason has been added.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Hope I'm not being too picky/pedantic, but there's a grammatical error (comma splice at itself, the code), and the wording could be a bit better in my opinion: Questions must include the code you want reviewed. Code must not appear only in a link to an external source. Doing so makes us dependent on a third party and makes it harder to review your code. If your code is very large, please select only the portions in which you are especially interested in a review. You are encouraged to keep the link to the rest of your code. \$\endgroup\$ – Corbin Jul 9 '13 at 6:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ Was the new close reason removed? I don't see it anymore. \$\endgroup\$ – svick Jul 18 '13 at 16:46
8
\$\begingroup\$

I think adding this as a common close reason is a great idea. Needing to close questions for this reason is pretty common.

Suggested wording:

Questions must include the code you want reviewed in the question itself, the code must not appear only in a link to an external source. Doing so makes us dependent on a third party and makes it harder to review your code. If your code is very large, please select portions you are especially interested in a review on and post those. You are encouraged to keep the link to the rest of your code.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, this wording seems okay to me (certainly better than what I had in mind). \$\endgroup\$ – svick Jun 28 '13 at 18:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ +1. Maybe some reasoning about why it is important couble be also useful. \$\endgroup\$ – palacsint Jul 2 '13 at 0:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ +1, good suggestion. I think it would be nice to mention SSCCE as well. \$\endgroup\$ – Lstor Jul 2 '13 at 1:58
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Lstor, as a community we haven't emphasize SSCCE. I think we'd want to decide on the community level to emphasize that for it to make sense to include in the close reason. \$\endgroup\$ – Winston Ewert Jul 2 '13 at 5:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @palacsint, hmm..., I'm not sure how much we could put into the reason there that would explain it. Any thoughts what exactly to put in? \$\endgroup\$ – Winston Ewert Jul 2 '13 at 5:19

You must log in to answer this question.

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