4
\$\begingroup\$

A day or two ago, the following question was posted:

https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/28620/a-program-to-transliterate-l33t-words-to-regular-english-words

It was about translating leetspeak into regular English. However, since there was no objective winning criterion, the question was quickly downvoted and put on hold. Eventually, the asker added a vague criterion "shortest program that can translate the largest number of leet words wins". They were asked repeatedly in the comments to add something objective, but didn't do so and responded with curses and abuse along the lines of "you're high-rep users and admins, all you ever do is kill with flame, that's what you do for fun". Eventually the asker, who was a new user and had 1 rep, voluntarily deleted the question.

I am convinced that, had there been an objective winning criterion (my personal suggestion is [leet supported from a list]/[code length], highest score wins, ), this could have been a good and popular question.

Can I post a similar, amended question in the sandbox to be reviewed? Would posting a similar question infringe the rights of the original asker?

I can't remember the asker's exact username, it might have been something like N???? M..

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ FWIW, your comment on the deleted question that the only thing wrong was the lack of objective winning criteria was incorrect. It was also lacking a proper specification. If you do run with this in the sandbox, it'll save a cycle of edits if you ensure that you write a testable specification and include some test cases. \$\endgroup\$
    – Peter Taylor
    Commented May 28, 2014 at 10:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ @PeterTaylor it is currently in the sandbox at meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/1634/16402 \$\endgroup\$
    – user16402
    Commented May 28, 2014 at 10:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ The question is now online at codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/28789/… \$\endgroup\$
    – user16402
    Commented May 30, 2014 at 10:06

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
6
\$\begingroup\$

Given a link for attribution (even one that can only be seen by privileged users), there isn't a problem with it legally (insert I-am-not-a-lawyer here).

Morally, that's up to you. I wouldn't frown on someone doing it, especially where the OP has voluntarily deleted it. By deleting instead of trying to edit it into shape, it looks to me like they're effectively saying "I don't want this any more." If they thought they could make something valid out of it, it wouldn't be gone. Now it's someone else's turn to take a crack at it.

Oh, and the asker was Nikos M.

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

This has already been done, successfully, here:

Duct tape can fix Mother's Day

Here, the new question took an interesting idea (see link in the question) that wasn't specific enough, and added something that validated the old one: an output specification, that was topical to the date.

Somewhat unsuccesfully here. Actually, the first question, though controversial (see comments) stayed open, and the second one, a rather unimaginative repeat which failed to solve the problems with the first one (and added some new issues of its own) stayed closed.

Pi Calculation Code Golf

Get as close to pi as you can

If a question looks like it can be saved, save it. If it cannot be saved but has good ideas, by all means use them!

Also, the following question has some good ideas, but looks like it's going nowhere as there is a new OP and he isn't taking the advice the community is giving in the comments. Once it gets closed, have a go at writing a better one if you want.

https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/28690/15599

Make your new version better by adding what was missing, and preferably something new if you can. The voters will be your judge.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.