9
\$\begingroup\$

Recently I found this answer, which was apparently marked as "Very Low Quality" due to not being ungolfed and hard to explain. Apparently, this was the norm at the time. However, nowadays I see a large number of answers with little/no explanation - was this rule changed, and if so, when?

Should it be changed back, or is the recently halved moderation team unable to keep up with the flood of extra reports they would have to handle?

||||||
\$\endgroup\$
  • 8
    \$\begingroup\$ Although we can't enforce it, I personally think every answer should contain an explanation, even if it is readable to most people like Python, Java, etc. I personally kinda hate it when I see an answer in a golfing language I don't know (i.e. Jelly) and it doesn't contain any explanation of what's going on. Then again, some people post at first without explanation, golf it some more, and add an explanation later on (which is completely fine), so where do we draw the line? As for adding an ungolfed version, I personally don't see the point if it contains a proper explanation. \$\endgroup\$ – Kevin Cruijssen Nov 28 '19 at 14:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ I would draw a limit at 48 hours after the latest edit; but what confused me was that previously, it seemingly was enforced. So what happened? \$\endgroup\$ – Corsaka Nov 28 '19 at 14:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ I would make it a bit longer than 48 hours, but I agree in general. And no idea, I didn't knew it once was enforced tbh. \$\endgroup\$ – Kevin Cruijssen Nov 28 '19 at 14:17
  • 11
    \$\begingroup\$ For the record, it wasn't flagged or anything, it was put into the review queues because it was short the system thought it potentially may be low quality. This is still a thing. \$\endgroup\$ – James Nov 28 '19 at 15:49
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Review queues are also accessible to anyone at a certain rep so it's not just dumped on the moderators. \$\endgroup\$ – Jo King Nov 29 '19 at 1:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .