Is there a way to easily find questions that aren't code golf?

Question

I found this question from January, but the top voted idea doesn't seem to have been implemented. In this time between the end of school and starting work, I would love to get some solutions to questions out there, but I'm not a fan of code golf and there doesn't seem to be a way to find questions that are not golf questions.

There might be a newer question that I missed, but how do I identify questions that are code golf easily and ignore them? I've seen several code golf questions not tagged as code golf, but ignoring the tag helps a little. Is there any other solution to either hiding code golf questions or bringing out questions designed to elicit interesting solutions?

On a somewhat similar note, I'm interested in community reactions to posting non-golf answers in "code golf" questions? Honestly, it's all about the puzzle. If you choose to code golf it, go for it. But at the same time, if I have an interesting solution that isn't golfed, there's no way to post it without a duplicate question.

Answer 1

The "ignoring [code-golf]" method is probably the best way I know.

IMHO, if you post a non-golf solution to a golf thread, you should at least community-wiki your answer. If you're doing it in good faith (i.e., it's truly interesting, and not spammy (non-golf just because you can't be bothered to golf)), people would probably let it stand. (I'd love to hear how other regulars here think about this stance, though.)

Answer 2

The tags being used to identify classes of puzzles right now seem to be code-golf, code-challenge, one-liner, king-of-the-hill, and ai-player, with a few tasks being tagged with more than one of the above. Meta question on one-liner; and another on king-of-the-hill and ai-player.

Using the tag search syntax (i.e. [king-of-the-hill]) does what you'd expect. You can also get to the contents of a tag through the "Tags" button at the top of the page. You an also exclude things from compound searches (i.e. [ascii-art] -[code-golf]), but alas it won't respond to just -[code-golf].

---

Bare ungolfed answers to code-golf have been known to draw some downvotes, but on the example I saw recently they have been reversed since the poster tried a little harder. Back on Stack Overflow, I got some positive feedback on a "answer" to a code-golf that merely described a possible attack on the problem, so I think that Chris' suggestion might work, especially if you explain what you are up to.