Timeline for Are two questions duplicates if they have different scoring rules?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6, 2017 at 15:44 | comment | added | Martin Ender Mod | @JasonC You can always post it in the sandbox first to get some feedback up front. | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 15:43 | comment | added | Jason C | I'm just going to try it and see if it floats. Worst case I have a regrettable scar on my activity tab and a lesson learned. | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 15:28 | comment | added | Martin Ender Mod | @JasonC It's always a somewhat subjective call, and my policy above is mostly meant (and used) as a guideline for close voters to decide whether they should use their vote or not. Since there are many answers that already consist only of a handful of operations, it would probably not be a substantial change. If, on the other hand, you restricted it to bitwise operations only for example, it could change things considerably (I'd have to go through to see if there are any such answers right now, though). | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 15:24 | comment | added | Jason C | This is very well-stated and I'm now sold on this policy as well. To be clear in my interpretation, does that mean codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/115516/… could not be reposted with the criteria of a restricted set of acceptable languages, and moved over to atomic-code-golf with operator count as the criteria? I felt strongly that it would be an acceptable new challenge before reading this, now I'm not so sure given that some of the answers currently there are both competitive and valid under those new rules. | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 16:55 | comment | added | user62131 | It seems that there's a way to interpret this to justify closing pretty much any answer: see the comments to this question. We might need another definition that makes it clearer what does and doesn't count. | |
| Jul 22, 2014 at 21:54 | comment | added | Martin Ender | @Quincunx Yes, that what he says at first, but then he turns it around (after the horizontal rule) and says that only the "requirement for rigorous correctness" is sufficient and a different winning criterion isn't. | |
| Jul 22, 2014 at 21:26 | comment | added | Justin | Interestingly, meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/781/9498 is basically what you are saying: The question is a duplicate if good entries for one challenge are good entries for another challenge. | |
| Jul 22, 2014 at 20:40 | history | edited | Martin Ender | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 337 characters in body
|
| Jul 22, 2014 at 20:14 | comment | added | Martin Ender | @Rainbolt I'm not talking about someone who is trying to post a valid answer but just "isn't good". I'm talking about someone literally copying over an golfed answer into a fastest-code challenge. That's just showing no effort at all. I don't mind removing that point from my answer though... that's not the important message. | |
| Jul 22, 2014 at 19:37 | comment | added | Rainbolt | If the author wants to protect against non-competitive entries, then the author has objective ways to accomplish this, such as enforcing a maximum time limit, maximum code length, etc. Rather than attacking noncompetitive (but still valid) answers, a better solution might be to edit the challenge to restrict non competitive answers. I think that this follows the Stack Exchange practice of "protecting" a question so that newbies don't post a bunch of garbage. | |
| Jul 22, 2014 at 18:54 | history | answered | Martin Ender | CC BY-SA 3.0 |