Edit - Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Rev

8

I mean, when you get answers starting with "This is a much more interesting problem when considered as an economics problem as well as a programming one." you know there's something very wrong.
– Sklivvz
Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 15:06
1

1) agreed, reason to close, not delete or migrate. 2) disagree - there's no "too localized anymore" 3) disagree - you don't need programming expertise in many algorithm questions, but we need algorithms in programming 4) disagree - This is the nature of many of the questions and answers we consider good on Stack Overflow 5) disagree - It's an algorithm question, code isn't required, but can be translated into code. 6) disagree - You don't substantiate this singular statement in any way and it's subjective at best.
– casperOne
Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 15:28
2

@casperOne: 4) Wait, what? Many correct and equivalent answers is the hallmark of a good question now? I smell a new definitive book list question in the works.
– user102937
Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 15:36
2) we have dropped too localised but this doesn't make this question valuable or general enough. 3) then close the other questions too as too basic. SO is for programmers not the general public. 4) see 3. 5) clearly you haven't read the answers ;-) 6) see 5.
– Sklivvz
Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 15:44
4

Multiple correct answers are neither the hallmark of a good question nor a sure indicator of a bad one, @Robert. A lack of criteria for incorrect answers comes closer to the real test there. Is this question too broad? Does it lean too heavily on subjective opinion rather than demonstrable fact?
– Shog9
Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 15:46
2

@Shog9 Yes. The requirements are poorly specified (the algo must be random, but also "fair", for varying interpretations of fair). The primary discussion on an SO question shouldn't be about ethics. If it is, IMO that is a symptom of something being wrong.
– user200500
Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 15:56
Let's focus on that then, @Asad. Much better argument than "lack of effort", IMHO - or the slipperly-slope of "if it doesn't require a computer to execute then it's not a software algorithm" (who here has never done a binary search by hand?)
– Shog9
Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 15:59
To be fair I never argued that any of the points I make are enough to close by themselves. I do believe that altogether they don't paint a good enough picture to keep this question though.
– Sklivvz
Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 16:10
8

Also, it's a "As a programmer, how can I choose the next guy who buy croissants" question. Boat programming
– Sklivvz
Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 16:13
@Shog9 The reason I've been saying this isn't a software algorithm is because to my mind, a software algorithm needs to operate upon elements of software, instead of simply being capable of demonstration/implementation as a software package. An algorithm for calculating optimal moves in a chess game, or an algo for stock prediction number crunching is not a software algorithm, regardless of being an algorithm that can be implemented as software.
– user200500
Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 16:16
That seems like a really fine hair to split, @Asad. So the travelling salesman problem is OT if I'm actually mapping routes to actual cities, but on-topic if I'm working with an object graph?
– Shog9
Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 17:12
@Shog9 Yes, because most non programming algorithms cannot be as easily repurposed for non trivial programming problems. It isn't really a fine hair to split unless you're deliberately looking at algorithms from CS theory (such as traveling salesman), which originate in problems dealing with computing and have merely been analogised for ease of understanding.
– user200500
Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 17:22
My original example was the common binary search, @Asad.
– Shog9
Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 17:25
1

@Asad: I'm still struggling to understand what rule you're applying here. It sounds like you're settling on a standard that allows questions on algorithms only if those algorithms are 1) already commonly-known (so, if it's in a CS textbook I can ask about it) or 2) clearly intended for use in software but not application software contexts (comparing sets of abstract data types is good, comparing contact lists is bad). This strikes me as a brutally difficult rule to put into practice - and one that prioritizes homework questions over real problems people face.
– Shog9
Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 19:38
1

@RexKerr the answer is simply "pick one at random, until it's not a one you don't want". It's extremely simple. If people complicate the issue it's because it's probably too simple to see... which again doesn't make it good, or complex, or a viable question.
– Sklivvz
Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 19:54

| Show 9 more comments

Correct minor typos or mistakes
Clarify meaning without changing it
Add related resources or links
Always respect the author’s intent
Don’t use edits to reply to the author

create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
```
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
```
put returns between paragraphs
for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
_italic_ or **bold**
indent code by 4 spaces
backtick escapes `like _so_`
quote by placing > at start of line
to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>
[example](https://example.com)
<a href="https://example.com">example</a>

formatting help »
answering help »