Tag Info

You have several options for follow-ups: Accepting an answer If one of the answers gives you good advice with clear directions for improving your code, just accept the best answer and upvote any other answers you feel were helpful. The checkmark that you confer is the best way to show appreciation on this site, as it gives 15 reputation points and raises ...

I think that such question should clearly state that it is a follow-up question to a previously asked question. A good follow-up question should include, in my opinion: Which question it is a follow-up to What changes has been made in the code since last question Why a new review is being asked for If a question does not include (at least some of) these ...

The problem is not the number of follow-up questions. The problem is the rate of posting them. If you post a follow-up once a week, probably nobody will even notice. As long as it's well done, for example by following the great tips in this other discussion. Posting follow-ups too soon is not good for anyone: Posting too fast is not good for you. Given ...

Sure, giving credit is always a good idea, to satisfy legal obligations, for academic honesty, and just out of courtesy. The exact form in which you choose to give credit is up to you, to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Thanks for mentioning "quite sophisticated solutions". I would like to mention that when posting revised code based on someone else's ...

The only logical point at which a follow-on process becomes too much, is when the code becomes a duplicate of previously posted code. Follow-On questions are important on this site, they add a lot of value as they often lead users through a progression of steps resulting in great code. My experience is that, when a particular user takes their code though a ...

I think you are thinking of the iterative process for an entire production size application, that is not what we do on Code Review. If the process goes farther than like 10 iterations, it's a very large piece of code, and we would have told the user the first post that they need to break it up into several questions, or start with smaller pieces. This ...

On the same day? Depends on the substance of the question and of the answers received, but as a general rule of thumb I'd say... one... but that can't be carved in stone: it depends™. There simply can't be a hard limit. But flooding the front page with several very similar questions where all but one are marked as answered, is eating up other questions' ...

The answer to the first part of your question I think should be: As many as you need. However.... be reasonable. You can't ask a follow-up to an unanswered question. You shouldn't ask a follow-up to a question you haven't marked an accepted answer to. And the code in your follow-up question should address every point in the answers provided or explain ...

Well, whatever it is, it is certainly not a duplicate. The follow-up question asks about the proper use of divs and spans; the original question contains no spans. I agree that it is rude to ask a follow-up question without adding mutual links, because that wastes other users' time. However, the author has not concealed the fact that it is a follow-up ...

Can there be too many follow-up questions? Considering that some follow-up questions can get massively down-voted, I think the answer is Yes, there can be too many follow-ups (at least in a certain amount of time). I say this is based on my observations of community reactions to certain follow-up posts. Now, I have no intentions of introducing a fixed ...

Thought I'll chime in here as the other answerer in the downvoted revision 5 question... To be frank, I was hesitant about answering that revision initially, as I do not know if another answer is going to come in minutes/seconds before mine, followed by a revision 6 in an hour afterwards, which may not include my newer suggestions. In some sense, just like ...

Is there any system we can use if we don't yet have that intuition? Sure. We can share and reverse-engineer a bit of our intuition to create a system. A bunch of rules-of-thumb, so to speak. The following will be my opinion and I encourage others to create a post of their own. In the end, you'll have to decide for yourself what YOU think you should be ...

More or less, I'm of the thought that the answers the asker receives takes care of this. There are cases where users are actively adding additional features and it makes sense if it all leads to a related task to have an iterative series. Review focused on a, implement suggestions and create A, add b + c, post new question Abc. Sometimes, follow up ...

How many questions with same script can I ask, if code not only merged reviews but adds new functionality? If it has new functionality (or even when it doesn't but it has been rewritten significantly enough to be new code), there's no problem with posting a new version. We've seen questions with 5 versions of the same program, every time a bit better. ...

If I remember correctly, the user in question posted a very similar question within 24 hours before that one, and removed it after 15 mins when it received only 2 comments, one from me linking to the tags in w3schools. The reason this stood out to me was because he commented angrily and rudely about the site. Since the post has been deleted, I have no proof, ...

Should I actually give credits to the reviewers who contributed to the new version? Yes. If we look at the bottom of this Stack Exchange page, we have the footer: site design / logo © [year] Stack Exchange Inc; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required Under the Creative Commons link, "CC BY-SA 3.0", we have the following ...

No (kinda) It's not okay to edit revisions of code into questions, because someone's review for revision 1 will be irrelevant for future revisions. This is called answer invalidation, and is something we do not like here at all. With that in mind, you're welcome to post new questions with the updated code. This is called an iterative review and it happens ...

You will find the answer to most of you questions in this almost duplicate discussion. Should I edit the original question, should I post the update as an answer or what? Never, ever edit the code in the original question. See the discussion I linked above for more details. Can you please tell me what should I do, so that the person who bothered to ...

It's hard for me (even as a regular user of Code Review) to evaluate this proposal, because it doesn't explain what the problem is. What exactly is the trouble that would be avoided by this proposal? Is it: You posted some code for review, and fixed the problems identified in the answers, and your fixed code would have benefited from another review, but you ...

Should I edit the original question, should I post the update as an answer or what? Editing the original question after you have received answers to show updated code isn't allowed by our site policy, because this would invalidate given answers and any future answerer wouldn't know which code they should review. You have different options based on what ...

Perhaps I'm late to the party, but just looking at the code, these two questions don't appear to be duplicates at all. The code is quite clearly different (and Code Review doesn't have quite exactly the same duplicate rules as Stack Overflow). I do agree that when users post follow-ups or other questions and quite clearly haven't taken into account the ...

Provided that the code is already on-topic, and you're still seeking actual reviews (not "which of these is better?" or anything like that), multiple code blocks can be reviewed in a comparative manner. Such questions should be tagged as comparative-review.

I'd like to suggest promoting follow-ups instead of chat. Rather than waste valuable information in comments and chat (neither of which are meant to be permanently accessible), suggest a follow-up at the first opportunity. Question: Is there anything wrong with me doing it this way? Answer: Yes, you could run into a concurrency issue here. Would ...

I came here because of The moderators have had a discussion, and we are proposing new guidelines for posting follow-up code. Specifically, we would like to end the practice of letting the OP append revised code to a question. Since this is a departure from past practice, please read and provide feedback. We plan to upgrade this to faq status soon. I ...

Just a thought: Assuming if we solve the 'question' side of identifying multiple iterations of a code review, how should answers be referenced back to the particular iteration then? By an anchor link to the particular iteration?

I do see mention of 'iterative' code reviews, which I assume refers to "post, receive answer(s), edit, answers updated" type questions. An iterative review is multiple questions on the same problem. Each code modification is a new question with new answers. There is more information under the link that @JoeWallis posted.

No, because editing the question by integrating answers would invalidate the answers.

Why would a user direct his attention to an earlier rev of a question when that was marked with an accepted answer and linked to an open "follow-up"? Either desist in chasing the update links and choose another question or look at the latest to add there... Honestly I was told to accept an answer and post a follow-up, it wasn't my idea. I wanted to edit the ...

When you've asked a question, had feedback, made changes, and are ready for another review, You should post a new question with the updated code, but, link the original review, just for clarity. For example, user @QPaysTaxes, has a trilogy of questions relating to a BF to Ruby converter, And for each, they write a new question: Number 1, Number 2 and ...

Feel free to answer your own question with the final implementation. Noting which answers helped you achieve your final result is acceptable, but sweeping statements like after looking at all the answers given, this is my final implementation are fine as well. Explicitly thanking people in such answers is considered non-SE compliant fluff. As for which ...