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

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.

• ignore+hide code-golf seems quite workable given the volume of questions is not high. – Jeff Atwood Jun 2 '11 at 10:48

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.)

The tags being used to identify classes of puzzles right now seem to be , , , , and , 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 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.