Recently I've seen an increase in people voting for LCC when I don't agree this is the correct reason. These all seem to be getting LCC VTC because they're lacking description.

Existing Close Reason

Lacks concrete context: Code Review requires concrete code from a project, with sufficient context for reviewers to understand how that code is used. Pseudocode, stub code, hypothetical code, obfuscated code, and generic best practices are outside the scope of this site.

Related Questions

Lacks Concrete Context is purely about code, not descriptions.



Since this has been going on for over a year now, with no sign of improving. Should we accept that the reason is confusing, and should be changed.

Maybe a rewording to say:

  • It's limited to just code;
  • To use UCWYA for description; or
  • To remove all instances of the word 'context.'

I'd hope one of these would help, but I'm no linguist.


Should we clarify the close reason?

  • Yes: What should we clarify it to?
  • No: How can we fix this scenario?
  • \$\begingroup\$ loosely related: codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/q/8880 \$\endgroup\$
    – Peilonrayz Mod
    Jun 17, 2019 at 14:06
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ LCC is sometimes abused where UWYA would've been more appropriate, but questions that get closed as such usually deserve to get closed. The reason being not the most appropriate, well, wouldn't including it into the reason be a better idea? \$\endgroup\$
    – Mast Mod
    Jun 17, 2019 at 14:06
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Mast It's not 'sometimes' from looking at the review queue it's 50% of the LCC in the past two pages. Where I only remember one being correctly closed as UWYA. That could be one way, I disagree with it for at least two reasons. But they should be discussed under an answer IMO. \$\endgroup\$
    – Peilonrayz Mod
    Jun 17, 2019 at 14:09
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Could you clarify what harm you believe results from the broad application of LCC? \$\endgroup\$ Jun 17, 2019 at 18:28

1 Answer 1


Doing nothing


It's confusing what people are closing for. Personally I don't VTC using the LCC reason unless it's pseudocode due to a history of stub/example code being enforced to a different degree at different points in time.

And so if someone VTC as LCC rather than UWYA then even if it is lacking description, I won't close it because I will be looking at the code not the description to find the problem everyone else has with it.


The current wording is confusing when used to close questions that have little description. Given that I'd recently seen someone copy and paste this reason into a comment, without any hyperlinks, it will only cause people to become confused why their questions closed and become unable to fix it.

Merging the close reason

This further proves CMs point that we don't need more than three reasons. Which will only further cripple our close reasons if we need to include more later. How can we prove that we would need four close reasons when we would already have four, but chose to only use three.

This is likely to still confuse users what is wrong with their code. The reason basically becomes "somethings missing from your question, but we CBA to even hint to you what".

Keeping them split

Getting UWYA alone can be a bit confusing. If given a comment to include more description it would make more sense however.

  • \$\begingroup\$ "And so if someone VTC as LCC rather than UWYA then even if it is lacking description, I won't close it because I will be looking at the code not the description to find the problem everyone else has with it." Huh? I assume that what you're talking about here is going through the review queue, but although you can see why other people voted to close I think the intention is that you make an independent assessment. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 20, 2019 at 14:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ @PeterTaylor When did I say I wouldn't be making an independent assessment? Currently I don't use review queues. \$\endgroup\$
    – Peilonrayz Mod
    Jun 20, 2019 at 14:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ If the way you assess the question is dependent on the reasons given by other voters, it is by definition not independent. If it isn't dependent on the reasons given, I can't figure out how to interpret the quoted sentence. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 20, 2019 at 14:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ @PeterTaylor Then downvote and move on. My answer is currently lacking some downvotes. \$\endgroup\$
    – Peilonrayz Mod
    Jun 20, 2019 at 20:53

You must log in to answer this question.

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