Timeline for The problem with insufficient context
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 12, 2018 at 0:23 | comment | added | mdfst13 | With links: Note that one of the readers from that post is also misusing the LCC close reason on the other example. Comments mostly deleted now (so that I can't link them), although I presume that you can still see them. | |
| Nov 11, 2018 at 23:46 | comment | added | Simon Forsberg Mod | @mdfst13 I read the comments as πάντα ῥεῖ (incorrectly) saying "Your question lacks context, please add a description about what the code does". Then you replied saying "This is not the LCC close reason, this is UWYAA" and then 200_success replied with "LCC applies here as well". Whether or not the question should be closed is a different subject. I was the moderator that came by and posted a comment and I did not say that insufficient context means a lack of explanation, I replied to the user who quoted "Please avoid stripping out key details". | |
| Nov 11, 2018 at 23:39 | comment | added | Simon Forsberg Mod | @mdfst13 To avoid confusion please be specific: Link to everything you talk about when you say "Note that one of the readers from that post is also misusing the close reason on the other example" | |
| Nov 11, 2018 at 23:20 | comment | added | mdfst13 | I don't see any problems with the question. I was replying to a post that said that the question needed more explanation and that was insufficient context. I would be happy if the question were reopened, as I have critiques to make. It seems clear to me that the poster is asking for help with example code meant to show to students. But that's a side issue. Regardless of what was intended, the effect is to criticize me which makes other readers think that the distinction is not important. Note that one of the readers from that post is also misusing the close reason on the other example. | |
| Nov 11, 2018 at 19:59 | comment | added | Simon Forsberg Mod | @Peilonrayz Edited the answer. The question that 200_success commented on had both problems. | |
| Nov 11, 2018 at 19:55 | history | edited | Simon ForsbergMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 115 characters in body
|
| Nov 11, 2018 at 19:53 | comment | added | Simon Forsberg Mod | @mdfst13 It is my impression that 200_success did not comment because he didn't want the distinction, I believe he commented because he did consider that the code was lacking context. You saw one problem with the question (unclear), while 200_success saw two problems (unclear + lacks context). | |
| Nov 11, 2018 at 19:25 | comment | added | Vogel612 Mod | @mdfst13 speaking personally: As a moderator I don't see the need to explicitly add to a distinction that a high-reputation community memeber clarified in the comments of a post. it's not like you're wrong. I don't think that 200_success is in the wrong either, though. | |
| Nov 11, 2018 at 18:17 | comment | added | mdfst13 | I would also point out that Simon commented on one of my example questions. And did not reprove the person using insufficient context incorrectly nor the former moderator who directed criticism at me for making the distinction clear. Nor do I recall Simon reproving the current moderator who held (and may still hold) that point. Finally, neither Simon nor any other moderator has enforced that point on the comment in the first question. If you are not going to enforce the rules the way that they are written, then let the rules match the way that they are being enforced. | |
| Nov 11, 2018 at 15:15 | comment | added | Peilonrayz Mod | I don't think this really adds anything. Point 4 links to a question that says to follow what you suggest, and you've not addressed the negatives to that point. | |
| Nov 11, 2018 at 15:04 | history | answered | Simon ForsbergMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |