This question has 4 close-votes. The reason is

This question appears to be off-topic because it is about code trolling

Why? There are some good questions out there, some of them even got into the Hot Network Questions.

Edit to clarify my question Some of you don't seem to like code-trolling. But this doesn't make it off-topic, as it is about coding/puzzling/fun. It's like you put iOS as off-topic because you prefer Android.

You should downvote questions you don't like and not put them as off-topic.

I'm looking for a reason why a good code-trolling question should be off-topic.

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ In short, some people want them to be. This has been vividly discusses in the chat again over the last couple of days. I just wanted to leave it here that code-trolling questions making it into the Hot Network Questions is no valid argument for them being good or on topic. StackOverflow has tons of locked list-type questions, which are very popular but still "not a good fit for this site". \$\endgroup\$ May 2 '14 at 10:22
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ "There are some good code-trolling questions out there" <<-- many people (like me) disagree. \$\endgroup\$
    – TheDoctor
    May 2 '14 at 23:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ They may not be good or on-topic, but if they get into the Hot Network Questions, many people like the question. Marking it off-topic simply because some other users don't like it looks strange to me. \$\endgroup\$ May 2 '14 at 23:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think that particular choice of close vote reason may have come more from frustration than it being actually a serious choice. The actual reason is usually "too broad". I don't know about the question you linked (TL;DR), but most of them are just "Write code that does X! (*wink* code-trolling)". This basically translates to "write any code whatsoever as long as you can argue that it has anything remotely to do with X". Also there's usually not really any challenge involved - it's just people coding some stuff for the lulz. While that may be funny it's not the purpose of this site. \$\endgroup\$ May 2 '14 at 23:59
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Again, just because many people like a question that doesn't mean it's on-topic. The problem that currently stands is that we are lacking an "official" statement/meta-discussion saying, we don't want code-trolling. Once that exists, code-trolling can legitimately be closed with reference to that. That's not the case (yet). But we don't have a statement for the opposite - "we DO want (good) code-trolling questions" - either. As long as that remains the case, it will remain just close/reopen war between haters and lovers of code-trolling questions. \$\endgroup\$ May 3 '14 at 0:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ just noticed your edit: comparing iOS and Android to code-trolling and whatever (say king-of-the hill) doesn't really make sense. iOS and Android questions are still principally the same. On this site that would be like closing a math + code-golf questions but leaving ascii-art + code-golf open. What we are talking about here entirely different kinds of questions. SO doesn't have tags for that, because there is supposed to be only one type of question: those about actual programming problems. Other types of questions exist, like calls for opinions and lists - and they are off-topic. \$\endgroup\$ May 3 '14 at 0:07
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ This site is for puzzles. Code-trolling questions are not puzzles, they're about amusing other people. Code-trolling is off-topic. \$\endgroup\$
    – Gareth
    May 3 '14 at 8:24
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ In my opinion it's about puzzles. You have to hide code and so on... King of the Hill isn't about puzzles, but still nobody thinks it's off-topic. I agree that most of the code-trolling questions are bad. @m.buettner why don't we have the discussion in this question, or should I ask a new one? We should decide if it's off-topic to end this stupid hate-war. \$\endgroup\$ May 3 '14 at 9:06
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ KotH has a clear objective and it's about devising a clever algorithm for a given problem - that sounds like a puzzle to me. I think Peter Taylor once put the purpose of good questions as writing code with a clear purpose while optimising towards some criterion. As for "the discussion" - I don't think we should have it here, but in a dedicated post - that would make the decision seem more official. However, if you don't mind waiting another day or two, I know that Doorknob has already written up a draft for such a question. \$\endgroup\$ May 3 '14 at 10:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ Perfect. I will wait \$\endgroup\$ May 3 '14 at 11:07
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Btw, I posted that yesterday: meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/1514/3808 \$\endgroup\$
    – Doorknob Mod
    May 4 '14 at 13:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ FYI, the link to the question is now 404. :( \$\endgroup\$ May 14 '14 at 22:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .