17

Over recent weeks, I've encountered a user that has recently been just posting links to DB Fiddle in the comments, often without context. From a user perspective the comments are just:

dbfiddle.uk/…

(Obviously with a valid fiddle).

I have often flagged these "No Longer needed" if I encounter them a little while after they have been posted, as at the end of the day they are just a link, and if the comment is an attempt to answer then an answer should be posted.

On several occasions I've also asked the user to post their comments as answers instead, with a little explanation; however, they have never engaged and in some cases have simply reposted the comment (with no explanation) again after it has been removed. On some questions, I have also seen the comment have several upvotes or the question asker ask the user to post it as an answer (so they can accept it). These comments too have gone ignored.

The problem is that if DB Fiddle is ever unavailable, or if the user decides to delete the comment (or someone flags it and it's removed) the usefulness of the comment (read answer) is lost forever.

Am I therefore in the right position to replicate these comments into a community wiki answer, putting the code into the answer itself when I encounter them? I might add a little of my own context (perhaps to give a very brief but not in-depth explanation of what it does) but I would also cite the user's name and link to their profile to state they were the original author. If the commenter then comments they wish to post it themselves I can delete the community wiki or flag it to be attributed to them (I don't know if you can, so I'd appreciate this being answered too).

In cases where the asker asked the user to post the comment as an answer, so that can accept it (for example) it enables them to do so if they wish, or upvote it as it helped them, it can be indicated to others that the answer is helpful by the upvotes (or down), and the answer can't be removed on a whim. So the answer might look something like this:

The following solution is taken from Community's comment, where they posted a fiddle with a solution. Community, if you wish to post this as your own answer, please do and comment/flag here for removal.

This answer uses function and named methodology to achieve the results:

Contents of the Fiddle

dbfiddle<>uk

For reference, DB Fiddle is licenced under Creative Commons CC0, and it is stated on CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication the following:

The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.

You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. See Other Information below.

As such my understanding (I am not a lawyer) is that reproduction of the work in the fiddle would not be breaking any licence laws.

This isn't a new user, by the way. They have several thousand reputation, and have posted 100's of answers in the past. They seem to simply not want to post them any more; however, such actions won't help the community become the repository of good questions and answers that it aims to be.

13
  • 3
    I know who you are referring to and see they just posted an answer! So maybe this specific case will resolve itself
    – Martin Smith
    Commented Jan 6, 2022 at 11:45
  • 1
    That would be nice, I will admit, @MartinSmith .
    – Thom A
    Commented Jan 6, 2022 at 11:45
  • 1
    Re "Am I therefore in the right position to replicate these comments into a community wiki answer, putting the code into the answer itself when I encounter them?": There are some meta questions about taking information from comments to a question and posting your own answer. For example, Is it OK to take someone else's comment and post it as your own answer? and Comment Poaching.
    – Peter Mortensen
    Commented Jan 6, 2022 at 15:06
  • 3
    Posting a link is basically directing people to an external resource. Everything that is valid about external resources applies here too, i.e. they can be the basis of an answer but not the full answer, the full answer has to stand on its own. The answer doesn't have to be a community answer.
    – NoDataDumpNoContribution
    Commented Jan 7, 2022 at 9:22
  • 2
    So… what exactly is a fiddle? The website's help page isn't exactly helpful in that regard.
    – M. Justin
    Commented Jan 7, 2022 at 20:35
  • 2
    @M.Justin a place to, well... "fiddle" in :) Same as "runnable snippet"
    – Oleg Valter is with Ukraine
    Commented Jan 7, 2022 at 21:07
  • 6
    I'm inclined to agree these recent fiddle-only comments are quite frustrating. The author has gone to the trouble of understanding the question asked, creating sample data and engineering a working solution yet for reasons unknown choose to not post an actual answer - with explanations as to their method/idea, suggestions, corrections, advice etc that are so often needed. For new users unfamiliar with advanced topics and methods the fiddle may not be of much value without accompanying explanation; Imho fiddles should qualify an answer to demonstrate code functions as described, nothing more.
    – Stu
    Commented Jan 8, 2022 at 21:15
  • 2
    They are, unfortunately, back at it, @MartinSmith ...
    – Thom A
    Commented Jan 10, 2022 at 15:28
  • 1
    I must admit, I really wish I could bounty this, or something. The community is very split on the answers here. At the time of this comment, one says "do it", with a score of 4 (+15/-11) and the other says don't with a score of 1 (+22/-23). Though one is slightly preferred at the moment, it's marginal and both have attracted a good amount of both up and downvotes.
    – Thom A
    Commented Jan 10, 2022 at 16:23
  • Well, I've asked the user in question to participate in the discussion here; let's hope that they do. Perhaps they're be able to give a good reason and the community can discuss it.
    – Thom A
    Commented Jan 10, 2022 at 17:42
  • 1
    So now they've gone and deleted their post. I voted to undelete, they undeleted then deleted again, removing my vote. What are we supposed to do? stackoverflow.com/a/70681291/14868997
    – Charlieface
    Commented Jan 12, 2022 at 22:54
  • 3
    I've undeleted mine (as I suspect that the only reason they posted an answer is they knew as I would delete mine) and flagged for moderator attention, @Charlieface . This is clearly trolling at this stage.
    – Thom A
    Commented Jan 12, 2022 at 22:56
  • 1
    I think one of the most frustrating things is that the user has outright refused to communicate, @Charlieface . I have asked them to post answers (I know you have too), and I have asked them to contribute to this post about their activity. They have never responded; period. I'm honestly just at a loss at this point.
    – Thom A
    Commented Jan 12, 2022 at 23:06

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
7

The problem is that if DB Fiddle is ever unavailable, or if the user does decides to delete the comment (or someone flags it and it's removed) the usefulness of the comment (read answer) is lost forever.

And the remedy here, is to protect against that by simply deleting the comment? That is not right. Deleting a link to a coded relevant fiddle is actively damaging the post. It is stated here by Dharman that "They inherently have no value for Q&A site" which is absolutely false. While there at one time was a thought that comments were simply transient, that is absolutely not the case. Comments have value, like it or not, and they should not be culled simply because they trigger you.

Am I therefore in the right position to replicate these comments into a community wiki answer, putting the code into the answer itself when I encounter them?

Absolutely.

That is best case scenario for this situation. With regards to citation issues, anything can be cited so long as it is properly attributed. Citations are not the same as publications. There is nothing wrong with taking a fiddle, and posting a Community wiki with the contents of it as an answer to the post; in this scenario at least (tangential, but don't just take people's fiddle code from answers and post your own wiki answer with it).

3
  • 7
    It is stated here by Dharman that "They inherently have no value for Q&A site" which is absolutely false. This cannot be emphasized enough. There are tremendously valuable comments all over the place, some with hundreds of upvotes. If a fiddle site ever goes away, then sure, delete the comments pointing to it, but in the meantime don't delete comments as NLN when, in the absence of a proper answer, they ARE still needed!
    – MattDMo
    Commented Jan 7, 2022 at 20:31
  • 2
    While I don't fully agree, I can see that people prefer this stance more than mine. However, I have one question: should links to fiddle be posted as comments in the first place? If they fulfil the role of a transient answer, is ok to just post links to external resources with no context?
    – Dharman Mod
    Commented Jan 8, 2022 at 1:35
  • The expectation as stated here, the scenario outlined by the OP, was to migrate the code from a link only fiddle into a community wiki with expansion. That is not a link only answer. With regards to comments, certainly we should not encourage link only comments, and depending on the type of link it is more than likely easy to remove them as googling can easily find MSDN or similar pages. That said, links which go to specifically designed fiddles relevant to the exact post are an outlier to the general rule, and should be handled as such with a certain level of restraint.
    – Travis J
    Commented Jan 8, 2022 at 6:58
3

The two existing answers that we have here are quite conflicting, and the community are very much split on which is "correct". I wanted, therefore, to summarise what I am going to do (at least for the time being). I will of course change these actions should there be moderator intervention, a community vote strongly discourages these actions, or the user in question actually starts using the answer feature.

My Answer

Firstly, I have reached out to the user again today, as they are still posting DB Fiddle link only comments, and asked them to post answers; they have not responded in the comments, and have not posted any answers in response. They have even reposted at least one comment after it has been removed by a flag or by themselves. This strongly suggests that the OP has no intention to change their ways.

As a result, at least for this specific user, I will do the following:

  • If I see the comment, and it has been upvoted well and/or the someone has asked for the comment to be posted as an answer (and said request has been ignored), I will create a community wiki answer
    • In the answer I will cite the user in question, and link to their profile.
    • As a (self proclaimed) matter expert, I will give some description to the methodology they use. This will be low level, but will point out the key points; such as the key function(s) or name of the methodology.
    • I will then include the content of the fiddle within a code fence (which is licenced under Creative Commons CC0, so can be redistributed) and a link to the fiddle. All will be within a block quote in the answer.
    • Flag the original comment as no longer required.
    • If the user in question asks, I will flag the answer for re attribution to them (not sure if this is possible) or they can post their own and flag mine for removal.
  • If there are no votes on it, and it has been there for awhile, flag for removal (no longer needed).
  • If during my normal use of the site, I see a comment to the fiddle readded that I have personally flagged, I will create a community wiki answer (per the above), and flag the comment as "No longer needed".
  • If I see other users doing the same, I will initially reach out to them, and ask them to post their fiddle as an answer.
    • If I see that they to don't wish to do so, I will instead likely follow the same process.

I hope that the last bullet point never happens.

Reasoning

I feel my reasons for doing this are also important; as justification seems very key to people's votes here. I outline some of these in my question, and some in the comments, however as the latter are likely to be removed as much as the fiddles from the user, it's important to give my reasoning:

The comment can be deleted at any time.

As I mentioned in my question, if the comment is deleted, then its usefulness is lost. Some of these comments do contain an answer that the user in question wants, and/or have been well upvoted. Stack Overflow strives to be a repository of good questions and answers (not comments), and if the answer in the comments is lost, then the question is also no longer helpful either; which is not the asker's fault.

The external site might not be available.

In a similar vain to the above. The comment is, effectively, a "link only answer", and we all know how bad those are. I have lost count how many times I have visited an answer that ends up being link only and has a dead link; they are useless.

The content cannot be properly rated

Comments can only be upvoted, they cannot be downvoted. Downvotes, despite what some think, are incredibly important, and I personally don't think they are used enough (especially on answers). Take this question and it's answers as an example. At the time of writing, the scores are 17, 1 and 3, which suggests that the question is well received, but the answers not but the latter slightly better. If, however, we were to look at the upvotes only then the values are 23, 23 and 15 respectively; that paints a completely different story and the latter is no where near as well received. Upvotes are only half the story; if the comment were a bad answer, it should most certainly be downvoted and it simply can't be.

The "comment" can be accepted as a solution

If the comment is reposted as a answer, the OP can accept it. These are strong indicators to other members of the community that the answer was the most useful to the user who asked the question. It also may mean that other users don't spend time contributing, if the answer they would use already exists.

The content is licenced under Creative Commons CC0

This is important too, as if it weren't the content might not be able to be redistributed. If it was licenced under something more restrictive then likely posting the answer without the consent of the original user would not be an option. The user, however, as explicitly waived this.

The user refuses to post answers

As noted above, and in my question, I have reached out to the user on several occasions to post their comments as answers; they have never responded nor done so. They have also ignored the requests of other users, included the question asker, to do so. As the best place for an answer is in the answer, and the user in question doesn't want to put their content there, I am doing so for them while removing the attribution to myself for said answer (so I do not gain or lose any reputation).

If you wish, you can find an example here. I am, of course, open to improving the formatting of the how I create these answers.

3
  • 1
    Hey @Larnu, I'm sorry for going overboard with my edit, and for frustrating you in the process if I did. I changed way too much, and it was way more opinionated than appropriate, despite what I may have thought initially. Apologies for making a poor edit of your post.
    – zcoop98
    Commented Jan 12, 2022 at 16:37
  • 1
    You didn't frustrate me, @zcoop98 , but it is certainly a pet peeve of mine for someone to change the language/dialect I used from English to American; as I'm not American. As there was a lot changed, and I was on my phone at the time I reverted the edit as it would have been far too difficult to retain the good portions and revert the "bad" (read translation).
    – Thom A
    Commented Jan 12, 2022 at 16:39
  • 1
    Of course, if you do want to contribute a new edit without changing the dialect/language, @zcoop98 , please do. I admit that my written language is often riddled with typographical errors or incorrect usage; unfortunately I've been getting worse as I age!
    – Thom A
    Commented Jan 12, 2022 at 16:44
1

You can write your own answer based on the information you learned from the fiddle, but be careful when copying the contents of the fiddle into community wiki. Make sure that the code you copy is actually the solution to the question and that you understand it enough to explain it. A code-only answer isn't very useful. Comments that are only a link should be flagged as not longer needed.

While dbfiddle.uk licenses content under Creative Commons CC0 many fiddle sites have a different content license than Stack Overflow. If you are not the author of that fiddle and the site doesn't allow you to relicense its content, you have no right to redistribute it under another license. If the source-site license permits it, you could copy it into community wiki here, but different fiddle sites have different licenses and you should carefully examine whether the site allows you to freely repost and relicense the content.

Comments that are only links can be deleted. If the link contained a solution then it should have been posted on Stack Overflow by its author. We can't deal with content posted on other sites and it has no value for Stack Overflow. For Stack Overflow to be a thorough library of information, the content must be placed here in full.

Some might argue that a link in a comment still has some value and by deleting it we might lose whatever little we have. It's important to remember that Stack Overflow is a Question and Answer site, and comments are not answers. They inherently have no value for Q&A site in the long run. They can't be indexed by a search engine, they can't be moderated and they can't be rated. Without any context or explanation, one can't even be sure if it is an attempt at answering. If you have enough knowledge about the topic to ascertain the value of the code in the fiddle and you can write your answer with an explanation, then you should do so and post it on Stack Overflow. The comment should be deleted either way as it is just noise.

29
  • 12
    For context, DB Fiddle is licenced under Creative Commons CC0.
    – Thom A
    Commented Jan 5, 2022 at 21:04
  • 11
    "Not every site might be licensed under the same license." I can be sure it's under Creative Commons CC0, as it's stated at the top of the site. As such, per CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication: "You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. See Other Information below. " So reproducing it is specifically not an issue. I'll add this context to my question, as I do freely admit it was omitted.
    – Thom A
    Commented Jan 5, 2022 at 21:07
  • 15
    Re: "Technically if the source-site license permits it, you could copy it into community wiki here, but it's better you don't." – ...Why? You make this claim and then never qualify it. If the site's content license allows transcribing useful content to Stack Overflow, why should that ever be discouraged? That's quite literally one of the exact reasons permissive licenses exist: useful re-use.
    – zcoop98
    Commented Jan 5, 2022 at 21:35
  • 4
    Related, but about sites without a license available: meta.stackoverflow.com/q/348698/6296561
    – Zoe - Save the data dump Mod
    Commented Jan 5, 2022 at 21:56
  • 7
    I still don't agree with the main pretext here "you have no right to redistribute it under another license"; as this isn't true for this scenario.
    – Thom A
    Commented Jan 5, 2022 at 22:36
  • 21
    I feel like we're getting lost in the rules here, to the detriment of being helpful to people. Yes, this is a Q&A site. Yes, it's better that content within the fiddle is posted as an answer. I'm not going to dispute that. However, If I were looking for a solution to a question (the question will still be indexed) and the only available help was within a fiddle in a comment, that has value to me as a user. In the long run, until the question has a real answer, what damage is being done by leaving that comment alone?
    – Someone
    Commented Jan 6, 2022 at 1:51
  • 4
    @Lewis that I can't downvote comments, which is important. Comments can be deleted by any reason, including no reason. If SE decides tomorrow to delete all comments, it would be within the promises of the site. There's nothing that assures people that comments will not be deleted. If no one move their asses to keep content, why should anyone be prevented from trying to moderate it?
    – Braiam
    Commented Jan 6, 2022 at 10:38
  • 7
    @MarkRansom The copyright owner has explicitly allowed you to do anything you want with the code including copying it into StackOverflow and issuing it under a different license. I think you're not only being unhelpful, you're also wrong.
    – Michael Kay
    Commented Jan 6, 2022 at 10:56
  • 3
    "only the copyright holder has the legal ability to change the license" As stated per the licence the user has used they have waived "all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law. ... You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.", @MarkRansom . So distributing the content under a different licence, cc by-sa in the case of Stack Overflow, is fine as it's permitted that I can redistribute. I could even charge people for it's use, if I wanted.
    – Thom A
    Commented Jan 6, 2022 at 11:34
  • 1
    @Larnu the only legal framework that gives you the ability to set and enforce a license is copyright. A copyright needs an owner. Maybe the license gives you the ability to charge for the software, but what if someone takes it and refuses to pay? You can't take them to court, because you're not the copyright owner and you have no legal standing. Talk to a lawyer if you don't believe me.
    – Mark Ransom
    Commented Jan 7, 2022 at 2:03
  • 1
    I'm not looking to charge for a community wiki answer though, @MarkRansom , so I suppose you're saying, therefore, that it's "fine"; especially as the licence I've linked to says I can reproduce the work.
    – Thom A
    Commented Jan 7, 2022 at 8:59
  • 2
    @MarkRansom You've missed the point of what CC0 does– quoting from the CC0 FAQ page on creativecommons.org: "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.". Owners of works put under CC0 have chosen to revoke their ownership rights. That's the point of CC0, a shortcut to put works into the public domain.
    – zcoop98
    Commented Jan 7, 2022 at 15:10
  • 2
    @Braiam Sure, you can't downvote comments. Is that so important though that a useful resource is removed from the site for the sake of moderation when there are no other answers? I mean, by all means, once an answer is finally posted I'm all for flagging the comment as NLN. However, by leaving the comment there until such a time, someone who finds it useful may indeed end up being the one to post an answer.
    – Someone
    Commented Jan 7, 2022 at 17:24
  • 1
    @Lewis yes. Extremely, because otherwise I can't know if the resource is actually "useful". If only positive feedback is possible, obviously you will only get positive feedback.
    – Braiam
    Commented Jan 8, 2022 at 1:25
  • 1
    @Dharman Oh, you were talking about link-only comments specifically, not comment contents in general. Yes, I agree there. As for downvoting: if it's really bad, there should always be a commend pointing out why, regardless whether it's an answer or another comment. Judging only by votes doesn't work well - there are many bad answers (and comments) with dozens of upvotes.
    – Bergi
    Commented Jan 8, 2022 at 21:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .