I recently hit 2k and can now review low quality posts. After reviewing nearly 200 flagged posts, I've noticed a significant number of flagged answers that may or may not answer the question, but include only code with absolutely no explanation.

Many times the question concerns technology with which I am not familiar. In these cases I try my best to decipher whether the answer is useful and valid, but sometimes I just skip the review. In cases where I know the tech, I can make an informed decision. However, I'm still not happy letting these answers through, because there may be many, many future visitors not familiar with the technology who will not know why the answer is correct.

My questions:

What does the SO community think is best in these situations?

Should I just vote with no comment needed?

I don't like this as it doesn't allow the poster to learn that posting more informative answers is useful to the community.

Should there be an additional option for these cases?

Perhaps something along the lines of This may answer the question but does not include an explanation. I'm not sure what the comment content should be, but this seems like a good option, though I don't know if this is in the spirit of voting to delete the post.

I'm just trying to do the right thing, so thanks for any feedback!

  • 29
    I've seen a number of people leaving comments along the lines of "While this code block may answer the question, it would be best if you could provide a little explanation for why it does so." In some cases, the answerer did go back and add that explanation to improve the answer. – Brad Larson Jun 13 '14 at 0:05
  • 6
    @BradLarson: Exactly, there's a difference between constructive criticism and just a vote for deletion. I feel that in most cases, if someone was willing to contribute code, they had good intentions. I want to communicate this through the review process. – Fiver Jun 13 '14 at 0:08
  • 5
    Some of us think properly constructed R code is sufficient. I don't do it a lot but I annoys the hell out of me when some person who doesn't know R wanders in to a question/answer and delivers a pompous little message about "lack of explanation". I've put in a ton of hours into building good answers, flagging duplicates, and explicating most of my answers. I know that I have learned much of my R from reading the R-help mailing list where code is often the only response. The message is ... read the help page .... learn ....teach. – 42- Jun 13 '14 at 0:35
  • 8
    Answers without explanation are really common on "I need a regex to do so-and-so" questions because explaining regexes is hard whereas writing them ain't. Sadly, these answers turn Stack Overflow into a regex writing service. – Matt Coubrough Jun 13 '14 at 0:36
  • 1
    Well, I learned regex by studying exactly that sort of response from more knowledgeable contributors. I considered it an opportunity to learn from the masters. Never had a class in regex, never had a class in Perl, still ahve huge gaps in my knowledge but consider myself a journeyman in regex. – 42- Jun 13 '14 at 0:39
  • 7
    @BondedDust Even properly constructed R code can surely be explained in a sentence or two. It's like a thorough documentation to make it easier for everyone. – Trilarion Jun 13 '14 at 8:14
  • 6
    I just say "This answer turned up in the low quality review queue, presumably because you didn't explain the code. If you do explain the code (in your answer), you are far more likely to get more upvotes—and the questioner actually learns something!" Often the user edits their answer and replies to my comment with something like, "Thanks for the telling me, I hope it's better now." – The Guy with The Hat Jun 15 '14 at 22:12
  • 2
    @BondedDust - as I recently explained to somebody that disputed my comment on their code-only explanation (for a regex). It is not ok to assume that everybody on the site already knows enough to decipher your answer. I recently helped a 7th grader on this site - who didn't even know that what they were looking at was a regex - you can't expect a newbie like that to know that they should be looking at helpfiles for regexes... These newbies are welcome on Stack Overflow, and we are doing wrong by them if we don't provide even a minimal two-sentence explanation of what we changed and why. – Taryn East Jul 17 '14 at 0:41
  • 4
    My usual comment-response to code-only answers is something like the following: "Hiya, this may well solve the problem... but it'd be good if you could provide a little explanation about how and why it works :) Don't forget - there are heaps of newbies on Stack overflow, and they could learn a thing or two from your expertise - what's obvious to you might not be so to them." ... but I don't vote-to-delete. It is an answer. It could just be improved. – Taryn East Jul 17 '14 at 0:42
  • 1
    @TarynEast That's a great response, concise and constructive. Thanks for chiming in. – Fiver Jul 17 '14 at 2:03
  • In my experience (e.g. here), this is a community where code alone is more highly valued than an answer with some explanation. This meta question further indicates that the best answer is "Which ever one helped you the most to resolve your issue," and that's more likely to be the simple code block an OP can just copy and paste right in to their code. – WBT May 23 '16 at 14:15

Similar question that approaches it from the flagging side: Flag 'Try This: {code}' Answers as "Very Low Quality"?

As Servy said in that question regarding deletion:

While you may feel that those answers are not quality answers, they are not of sufficiently low quality to merit deletion...When you come across an answer that you feel is not helpful due to its low quality, you should downvote it.

Though before downvoting, I'd definitely advocate what @BradLarson said in the comments:


especially if it's clear that the user is new (since they may not know better)

In short, leave a comment asking them to elaborate. If they refuse to do so, downvote and move on if you think the lack of explanation really detracts from the quality. While we may not be fans of answers that lack explanation, they aren't so bad that they need to be deleted.

  • 12
    We might want to have this as a boilerplate comment somewhere. – PlasmaHH Jun 13 '14 at 8:49
  • 4
    This sounds like good advice, thanks! I agree with @PlasmaHH that it would be nice to have this as a boilerplate, but not necessarily as one of the delete options. It would be great if there was another option named "Recommend Improvement" with several boilerplate options..maybe this could replace the "Edit" option? – Fiver Jun 13 '14 at 18:18
  • 3
    @Fiver: I think we shouldn't have this as a replacement, but as an additional option. Maybe the "looks ok" should have multiple bullet points, some of which leave comments. – PlasmaHH Jun 13 '14 at 22:02
  • @PlasmaHH: Agreed, but how does something like this get implemented? – Fiver Jun 13 '14 at 22:24
  • 1
    @PlasmaHH Sticking it in as a boilerplate comment may give the impression that all code-only answers are low-quality and all should be deleted. Similar to link-only answers, I think a clear line should be drawn first. If a line can be drawn then I'd advocate the addition. – Radiodef Jun 14 '14 at 23:34
  • @Fiver: Someone writes everything together as a meta post with feature-request tags and crosses fingers that it gets implemented ;) – PlasmaHH Jun 15 '14 at 20:15
  • 3
    I've found that the "please provide explanation" often isn't enough, You need to tell them why they need to explain. They often never realised that lots of newbies come to this site , googling for a solution to their problem (and want to know if the solution given would help them too). Experienced programmers also often forget how much they know and that what is obvious to them is not at all obvious to a complete newbie. Thus my preferred code-only comment (in the main comment section above) – Taryn East Jul 17 '14 at 0:45
  • Instead of downvoting? Did you mean (Recomment-)Deletion-voting? – Deduplicator Aug 18 '15 at 2:18
  • When I answer questions that can benefit from explanation, I provide an explanation. When the answer is absolutely basic/trivial, I don't explain it because the few who would benefit from an explanation would benefit far more from looking up the constructs used in a man page. I've recently received comments from people with very low reputation and no knowledge of the domain telling me the answer was flagged and it could benefit from explanation. If you don't know the domain, don't review the answer, just move on to something you DO know about. Rubber-stamping the raised flag is not useful. – Ed Morton Aug 18 '16 at 15:41
  1. Edit
  2. Comment
  3. Vote/Skip

Do you grok the code?

If you understand what the code is doing, then you can always edit the post to explain it. This means that not only do the future readers get the code, but they also get an explanation of what it does. That's what edits are for.

Do you lack time?

If you don't have the time to write out a complete edit, or you don't grok the code, feel free to drop a quick comment saying something like "Would you mind adding an explanation to make us understand what your code does?"

Now how does it look?

If you grok the code and it solves the problem, give it an upvote and a Looks OK. If you grok the code and it doesn't solve the problem, give it a downvote and consider explaining why in a comment, then click Looks OK -- after all, wrong answers are not a reason to delete them, that's what downvotes are for. If you don't grok the code, feel free to click Skip.

Save your delete votes for content that gives a link without explanation, or has absolutely no relation to the question being asked, or is otherwise unsavory content.

  • 1
    Is there any incentive to edit someone else's answer to add an explanation? I find explaining things well is far more time consuming than writing code, and won't the answerer be the one who gains all the upvotes and rep? – Matt Coubrough Jun 14 '14 at 23:39
  • 2
    @Matt, because it helps out future readers? Rep isn't the be all and end all. Of course, if you're more concerned about rep, feel free to write your own better answer in addition to the review. – jmac Jun 15 '14 at 2:33
  • 1
    @jmac I agree rep is not what it's all about - I agree that it's probably better to improve existing answers than end up with dozens of low quality ones, but I'm just pointing out that the Stack Overflow model doesn't encourage that. – Matt Coubrough Jun 15 '14 at 2:36
  • @Matt, I think it does encourage it -- after all, you have an edit button in the reviews, and can edit any post even if you don't have reputation on the sites (though they have to be approved). – jmac Jun 15 '14 at 2:37
  • 3
    To clarify, while Stack Overflow seems to encourage editing, I think their current "rep" model doesn't. – Matt Coubrough Jun 15 '14 at 2:40
  • 3
    Editing a post to add a detailed explanation to an answer without any isn't what edits are for. Adding new content that the author never intended to add to the post is an invalid edit. The link you provided even explains that. You edit a post To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning). If you're going to take the time to write out a detailed explanation that answers the question then that should be posted as a new answer, not as an edit (attributing as appropriate any content taken from the original answer that you use in yours). – Servy Feb 13 '15 at 17:17

If a post in the Low Quality Post review queue is indeed low quality, but doesn't fit any of the categories for deletion, then it should not be deleted (or recommended for deletion).

If you are are able to improve the answer by editing it (for example by adding explanation to a code-only answer), then do so. Otherwise, you can open the post in another tab and down-vote it. You might also post a comment explaining why this is a low quality post and what needs to be done to improve it. After all that, click "Looks OK" since the post doesn't qualify for deletion.

Because of the large number of code-only answers we see on StackOverflow, it would be useful if Low Quality Post reviewers could choose a "Lacks explanation" option that would:

  • Post a boilerplate comment saying that the post might answer the question, but that it would be more helpful with an explanation of why this is the correct answer.
  • Possibly down-vote the answer..
  • Continue as if "Looks OK" had been clicked.
  • What "categories for deletion" do you see, and where are they written down? – Deduplicator Aug 18 '15 at 2:21
  • @Deduplicator Perhaps I should have written "categories for closing", I mean the categories that are offered when you flag a post and choose "should be closed". – Blackwood Aug 18 '15 at 3:11
  • The LQP-queue doesn't have anything to do with questions on SO though... – Deduplicator Aug 18 '15 at 3:33
  • @Deduplicator Can you explain what you mean? I referred to answers rather than questions, and there are indeed SO posts in the LQP queue. – Blackwood Aug 18 '15 at 10:16
  • Only questions can be closed, thus categories for closing (and the pre-defined close-reasons aren't, actually), could only apply to questions... – Deduplicator Aug 18 '15 at 14:28

What do you think, why we are here? I familiar with google search and never asked my own question... But why other people asks?

  1. They are too lazy to use search engine and want just get quick solution.

  2. The problem is rare and specific.

  3. Because they are idiots.

  4. Your opinion? Because they want to get full description of the code? Hahaha...

For the cases 1, 2 and 3 only-the-code answer is suitable.

And only for strange case 4 may be not. So I really don't understand you. Someone wasted the time, wrote the code, tested it and finally answered! Why do you want to remove this answer? Why do you recommend to downvote it? It looks really odd. Please stop to generate suspicious rules and let people vote as they want.

As for me, sometimes more faster to quickly post the code than dig into 10-20 similar but not the same questions and think: is it duplicate, or partial duplicate, or maybe not a duplicate at whole.

As for me I really happy when the answer contains only code and nothing more. I can explore it, rewrite it and ask any additional question if I need.

  • 1
    This answer goes against the whole ethos for Stack Overflow, which is "to build a library of detailed answers to every question about programming". See also How to Answer, where is states "Brevity is acceptable, but fuller explanations are better." – Heretic Monkey Nov 14 '16 at 22:27
  • @MikeMcCaughan Dear Mike, I don't think so. It's good that you read these wonderful texts, but I'm afraid many people didn't. But is doesn't mean that we couldn't build this amazing library. I think we already did it. All people different. Somebody want to get verbose answer. Other - code blocks only. I don't see any crime here and it's strange for me that you do. – kay27 Nov 14 '16 at 22:33
  • 3
    I don't see a "crime" myself, but I do see a lower quality post than it could be if I see a code only answer. Sure, there are no rules against code only answers, so there's no reason to flag the answer. However, answers should be tailored for more than just the OP. This means that you should take into account that someone who does want to know why the answer works may find and use your answer one day, and they won't find your answer useful if it's just a code block. If you explain the code block, you satisfy both users: Those who want code only can copy the block and ignore the explanation. – Kendra Nov 14 '16 at 22:38
  • As for removing and downvoting those answers, which is also addressed in your answer: I don't necessarily see a reason to remove them unless there is another answer that is the same, but with an actual explanation. Then again, if they aren't in the way, why bother? If it's the only answer? I don't really see it as doing any harm. Downvoting, however, I would do if I was looking for a solution and found an answer like this. I like to learn as I'm solving problems, and these answers just aren't super useful for that. Downvotes are the way to signal I find something not that useful. – Kendra Nov 14 '16 at 22:43
  • @Kendra Why I'm answering questions - because I love hard tasks. But when the task is solved it isn't interesting anymore. So I force myself to post the solution. Will I post it if it will be downvoted permanently?.. Maybe Fiver here to earn 2000+ and tell others what they must do? Why he couldn't just skip that answer if he can't understand it? He doesn't want to read language manual, but I'm not a manual for him and he isn't my boss (at least for the moment). – kay27 Nov 14 '16 at 23:03
  • @Kendra Please take a look: stackoverflow.com/a/40486588/5920627 Two guys rushed to make absolutely useless comments, thanks Fiver. One guy permanently marked the task previously answered, thanks don't know who. But in fact it wasn't answered there :) There was the similar question, but not the same. So I think we have too many lawmakers against humble asking guy. And I think it's not right. – kay27 Nov 14 '16 at 23:29
  • 1
    @kay27: The only person who can mark a question "answered" (or rather, accept an answer) is the original asker. Mods do not do that. (Also, why are you blaming Fiver?) – Nathan Tuggy Nov 14 '16 at 23:43
  • @NathanTuggy thx, interesting for me, because, as I said, I never asked and I don't know all these things, but is it related to my answer here? – kay27 Nov 14 '16 at 23:51
  • @NathanTuggy I wouldn't say "blaming", but the commenters Who found my answer inappropriate posted a link here... And here I am... I wonder will somebody upvote my answer) please comment if you did. Because I don't want to fight. If I'm alone, probably I'll just delete my answer... But not my thoughts and not my mind. – kay27 Nov 15 '16 at 0:01
  • 1
    @kay27: There is no dispute that a code-only answer is subpar and non-ideal. The only real question is whether such answers should be outright deleted by other users, and neither comment said they should; instead, both attempted to help you and other users edit to make it better instead of deleting. – Nathan Tuggy Nov 15 '16 at 0:16
  • @NathanTuggy not deleted, but downvoted. What goes on? OP asks - I do my answer. Someone decided it useless - OK. We dont have to teach him. This work doesn't paid, but well-formed question with the code in answer will useful for many programmers as is (they couldn't even read English explaination, but always understand code). So why someone under my answer invokes others vote the way he wants? I'd understand if he write: I don't understand! Explain! - I'd explain with my pleasure. But this way! Don't you see - they can't understand answers, can't ask own questions, they're just trying to rule – kay27 Nov 15 '16 at 6:13
  • 2
    @kay27: An answer that has code, and an explanation for that code, is almost by definition more useful to more people, because it is more comprehensive and versatile in the way it answers the question. Anyone is free to downvote an answer that doesn't explain the code, either because in their expert opinion it does not do enough, because in their non-expert opinion they have no idea what the code does, or whatever. That's what downvotes mean: "this post is not useful". No comment necessary, especially not for something obvious like "this answer does not explain things". – Nathan Tuggy Nov 15 '16 at 6:35
  • Also thanks to everyone who viewed my answer and downvoted stackoverflow.com/questions/40486379/… I see you really experts :) If you read the question OP asked how to use grep to get some desired result. I show how to use grep. Of course I could write something like: "Try to add -op parameters like that: ********". What this notice will change and what will it explain? – kay27 Nov 15 '16 at 7:25
  • @NathanTuggy I fully agree with you. Copy my code, add your comment - make the best answer this way! Feel free - who forbids you? But they chose another way which I couldn't accept. – kay27 Nov 15 '16 at 7:33

You must log in to answer this question.

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