Timeline for How to handle questions with code as images
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 1, 2023 at 7:11 | comment | added | Cody Gray Mod |
[...] The names are all really just window-dressing, though. Completeness is still required for the examples, which is implied by the word "reproducible" (if it reproduces the problem described, then it's complete; if it can't reproduce the problem, then it's not complete). You'll also notice that "complete" is still explicitly mentioned as a requirement in the help center page (for which the [mcve] short-link still works on the main site).
|
|
| Jan 1, 2023 at 7:09 | comment | added | Cody Gray Mod | @BrettCaswell You mean, why did it change from "MCVE" (Minimal, Complete, Verifiable Example) to "MRE" (Minimal, Reproducible Example)? I guess because someone was trying to shorten it. You might recall the "reprex" debacle, where Shog9 tried to come up with a "less awkward" phrase, but failed miserably. :-) The follow-up to that is here, which introduces the new name. [continued...] | |
| Dec 31, 2022 at 17:59 | comment | added | Brett Caswell | @CodyGray did this section title change? specifically, is 'Complete' portion no longer implied or to be construed as either on nor off topic? Was it not 'Minimal, Complete and Reproducible'? | |
| May 28, 2020 at 4:05 | comment | added | Martin James | @CodyGray it's worse than that: there is the very real possibility of removing errors. A skilled and experienced software developer, for instance, could easily remove syntax errors without consciously realising it:( | |
| May 28, 2020 at 1:47 | vote | accept | John Gordon | ||
| May 27, 2020 at 21:53 | comment | added | Cody Gray Mod | The site is collaboratively edited. One of the major advantages of this is that we can all help fix problems. As such, I'm just not on board with introducing any sort of blanket prohibition against edits that transcribe code from images, or indeed any edits that can salvage a question, rescuing it from a state where it needs to be closed into a state where it can be answered. There's always a non-trivial risk of introducing errors when making edits. The editor needs to be diligent, and so do the reviewers, and there are always rollbacks as a failsafe. | |
| May 27, 2020 at 21:27 | comment | added | Scratte | I think the line for when it's OK to transcribe code should be just as hard as when it's OK to have code in images. Meaning: never. The risk of introducing transcribing errors is just too high. In addition I don't think suggested edit reviewers should have to go through images of code matching each character from image to text one character at a time. And, one cannot know what type of whitespace was present in the original code. Also, copy paste from e.g. the official javadoc often leaves invisible characters that my compiler will complain about. | |
| May 27, 2020 at 21:10 | comment | added | Cody Gray Mod | I don't see why we need a "take over" feature, @Alexei. The site is collaboratively edited. The only real "privileges" that a question-asker has are (A) receiving/losing rep from votes, and (B) selecting an answer. I just don't see compelling reason to change the way either of those privileges are distributed, especially not because someone made an edit, no matter how substantial. Edits are still supposed to respect the author's intent. We're not talking about editing in code that they didn't intend to be there. It's still their question. | |
| May 27, 2020 at 21:08 | comment | added | Cody Gray Mod | @BSMP I do not subscribe to the general philosophy espoused in the linked Q&A. That is, I do not think it is inappropriate to transcribe images, nor do I think that suggested edits doing so should be rejected on that basis alone. Naturally, doing this is purely optional, and it is a lot to ask, so I certainly don't expect anyone to do it instead of closing. And if you do decide to do it, you definitely need to be careful not to introduce transcription errors (that would be grounds to reject the edit). Furthermore, you should only do it when, as I said, your edit would salvage the question. | |
| May 27, 2020 at 21:08 | comment | added | John Montgomery | @AlexeiLevenkov That seems like it would only lead to abuse. If you see something in the question that deserves being answered and it doesn't look like the OP is going to fix it, you can always just ask a new question about it directly (in my experience though, 99% of these questions are either way too broad or duplicates anyway). | |
| May 27, 2020 at 20:53 | comment | added | Alexei Levenkov | We really need TOFQ ("take over the question") functionality - it's somewhat unfortunate that there is "approve and edit" that takes responsibility for edits but no "edit and take over" for question - that would let one edit a question they find valuable and accept full responsibility for downvotes that come with it... | |
| May 27, 2020 at 20:28 | comment | added | BSMP | I was under the impression that we aren't allowed to transcribe images. Is this just for suggested edits or about the amount of text in the image? | |
| May 27, 2020 at 20:21 | history | answered | Cody GrayMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |