The Proposed Question Sandboxes aren't really working.

As per this question, we should move them to the main site.

This is just a suggestion for how we might go about this.

  • Create a special tag, , , , , anything that gets across the meaning.
  • Questions with this tag cannot be answered.
  • Instead of posting proposed questions to the sandbox, you post it to the main site as a separate question, with the special tag. When someone attempts to answer the question, a message is displayed saying that the question is on hold because it is not yet finalised.
  • As in the sandbox, suggestions and issues are pointed out in the comments on that question.
  • Since it is on the main site, suggested edits are enabled, so improving the question is easier.
  • For the same reason, you get reputation as an incentive (?) although you can't upvote something twice (normally, once in sandbox and once on the main site, but here it's one question) so I doubt this will work. Doesn't matter that much.
  • When the question is finished, the author removes the tag, the question is no longer "on hold", and answers can be posted - the contest begins at this point.

Any feedback?

  • \$\begingroup\$ Another idea: make the sandbox the question and the answers the sandboxed posts. This would be difficult because questions with this tag would have to be immediately closed for this to work. \$\endgroup\$
    – Doorknob
    May 19, 2014 at 14:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ Instead of explicitly closing the question, why not just add a big header stating that no-one should answer? \$\endgroup\$
    – user12205
    May 19, 2014 at 14:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ Sounds like this post: codegolf.stackexchange.com/posts/27101/revisions \$\endgroup\$
    – Justin
    May 19, 2014 at 17:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Quincunx "Request for Comments! Challenge will open in 24 hours" yes, that's more or less the idea \$\endgroup\$
    – user16402
    May 19, 2014 at 19:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ In what way are they not working? \$\endgroup\$ May 20, 2014 at 12:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ @PeterTaylor meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/1305/… \$\endgroup\$
    – user16402
    May 20, 2014 at 13:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ The most upvoted answer (by far) on that page says that the sandbox is working. It does suggest a way in which it could be improved, but this is not it. \$\endgroup\$ May 20, 2014 at 14:10

1 Answer 1


I'd like to back up The problem with sandboxes, and a proposed solution.

Let's kill the sandbox


But, aren't we a Stack Exchange site? The entire network was designed so that there is no need for a sandbox. Is there not editing and closing? Questions don't have to be perfect immediately on posting; if you see a minor problem, just edit the post! Comment for major problems, and close unrecoverable challenges.

Are you starting to notice something? This is exactly what other Stack Exchange sites do!

(emphasis added after all emphasis removed)

We don't need such an elaborate solution. Just work out your questions beforehand (in a text editor / paste into a text editor), then post. Any problems can be solved in a short amount of time afterwards.

I used this method for the most recent challenges of mine:

Both challenges turned out fine. There were a couple mistakes that I fixed within the first day of posting.

For challenges that need more working out beforehand, I recommend using the chatroom designated for this. Usually, you don't need to post the whole challenge, just the idea and the possible problems. Then, discuss it with fellow codegolfers. I've found that this method, combined with the previous one works pretty well.

However, sometimes, you might only have an idea, but don't know how to create something from that. Use the chat. But if you need even more help, the current sandbox style works well. If you follow the other parts of this question, the sandbox will get less posts anyways.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I think the chat works just as well in the latter case. \$\endgroup\$ May 19, 2014 at 23:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ I fully support this, but in order to achieve it, we're going to have to start flagging "answers" that exploit loopholes that the OP obviously meant to disallow as NAA and kill them with fire/convert to comment - they should be comments suggesting to remove the loophole, not answers. Also, as Chris Jester-Young mentioned in an answer to your linked post, we will have to "weed out questions (and answers)... aggressively," which I think can be achieved considering the number of active closers on this site (this one was closed in under an hour!). \$\endgroup\$
    – Doorknob
    May 20, 2014 at 2:26
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This is good, though ultimately nearly every question will probably need a small sandboxing period. It's important to know that we aren't like the other StackExchange sites; we aren't a conventional Q&A. It can be as small as an OK from someone in the chat, or opening the question a few hours after posting it. \$\endgroup\$
    – user16402
    May 20, 2014 at 13:01

You must log in to answer this question.