Timeline for answer to What should the predefined off-topic reasons be for Stack Overflow? by Travis J
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 15:29 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 29, 2015 at 13:45 | history | migrated | from meta.stackexchange.com (revisions) | ||
| Jun 24, 2013 at 19:26 | comment | added | Travis J | @Shog9 - Sorry to persist at this, I am clearly confused on this topic. Just so I have this correct, it is perfectly fine to post requests for work as questions as long as the question is properly worded and documented? | |
| Jun 24, 2013 at 19:22 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | that example was deleted by its author, without being closed, flagged or even down-voted; I wouldn't put too much weight on that. As for the on-topicness of this type of question... There are thousands of them doing just fine on SO and have been for years. | |
| Jun 24, 2013 at 19:17 | comment | added | Travis J | @Shog9 - In response to the linked question (10k+). Note that it is now deleted because it was not a good question. It was a request for work. However, you seem to be of the impression these requests are to be allowed now? As long as I show what I was thinking. "I am trying to make a UI where the user can control a dynamic list of addresses." And they show some code. "Here is my view model that I am binding to" What is the best way to implement the UI? You think that is a) a question, b) "on topic", c) worthy of an answer? | |
| Jun 24, 2013 at 4:39 | comment | added | Travis J | @Shog9 - I don't think code should be a requirement. There should at least be an explanation of the attempt though. I guess that is the "tell us what you tried" part of #3. Out of curiosity, how far away are we from these changes being published to stackoverflow? | |
| Jun 24, 2013 at 1:23 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Oh, and @Travis: regarding showing effort for code you're working on... That's the entire focus of reason #2. In one of the first drafts for this, there was a lot more overlap between #2 and #3, but I backed away from that a bit (and may go further yet) because they're separate (though related) problems and the last thing I want to do is encourage more folks to post code just for the sake of satisfying an arbitrary requirement (I've seen too many questions made worse by the inclusion of a block consisting of nothing but an empty function or program shell with "logic I need goes here" in it). | |
| Jun 24, 2013 at 1:20 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | I think it's fine, @Travis. I would prefer the JSFiddle code was embedded, but in this case it's not essential to the question. | |
| Jun 23, 2013 at 23:57 | comment | added | Travis J | @Shog9 - What do you think of this: stackoverflow.com/q/17266288/1026459 ? | |
| Jun 23, 2013 at 23:47 | comment | added | Travis J | @Shog9 - In my opinion: It definitely depends heavily on context. In an algorithm, defining what your train of thought was could be seen as effort. This would satisfy the "attempt to solve" clause listed in my answer. However, when talking specifically about a programming question where code is involved, I think that it is very easy to define effort. Effort: Either code was shown or the approach was outlined. No-Effort: No code was shown, and no approach was outlined - even though a solution was requested. | |
| Jun 23, 2013 at 23:39 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Define "effort", @Travis. Where do you draw the line between thought and effort when both are expressed via text typed into a computer? | |
| Jun 23, 2013 at 23:05 | comment | added | Travis J | @Shog9 - I would actually like to see some effort, not just thought. Although the OP in the example did not provide the exact work produced (which isn't always necessary), he provided his process that he was using already. It definitely showed effort. I feel like many times people get an idea and then post "how can I implement this idea". There can be a lot of thought behind it, but it should be up to them to actually implement the idea, not the community. Without any effort, there is nothing we can do. If they get stuck then that is where we can step in and help them out. Is that too strict? | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 20:12 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | that's my take too (the title could use some love, but it's not a show-stopper). And this is what I'd like to encourage: questions that simply show that the asker has thought about the problem a bit. | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 20:06 | comment | added | Travis J | @Shog9 - Good example. The OP does not seem to be a help vampire to me. They have invested a lot of time into a feature already which seems pretty neat (By the way, very cool finding a coded airplane example). They have one caveat that they cannot seem to get working and ask for an approach. The answer provides a rather ingenious approach to folding content based off of css margins, but the answers aren't really what is in question. This does not feel like a request for work to me because the OP has done so much already and has a very small specific circumstance outlined. | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 19:59 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Here's a question for you: do you feel this author has demonstrated sufficient effort? He's certainly gone a bit further than simply demanding a plane... | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 19:57 | comment | added | Travis J | @Shog9 - As for the "post code" request, where does it say code in the text? I am talking about an attempt, either in psuedo, as a description of what they tried, something. I think that questions are sometimes too aggressively closed and that is unfortunate. That is another issue though. There are a lot of questions which come in that ask the community to do the work with only supplying the requirements. How else can we politely but forcefully close and prevent those questions? | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 19:54 | comment | added | Travis J | @Shog9 - With regards to using "Off Topic" as an umbrella, this is just my opinion. I completely understand the issue of going with what is the best option which this seems to be. | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 19:53 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Also, I don't like "include an attempt to solve the problem" or any other euphemism for "post code". Code is important when the problem is in the code; as a proxy for demonstrating a basic understanding of the problem you're solving, it sucks. One of the most frustrating things I've seen with Too Localized was its use on questions that didn't include code ("not enough effort!") ...and then again on similar questions that did ("too specific to your code!") Damned if you do, damned if you don't... | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 19:50 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | FWIW, this isn't something we just pulled out of thin air; folks have already been using OT in this fashion for quite a long while. The name may not be quite right, but naming is hard and this is what folks are already used to, so... | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 19:31 | history | answered | Travis J | CC BY-SA 3.0 |