6
\$\begingroup\$

This question raised the issue of questions that do not make mention of being golf questions. Sometimes answerers assume it's a golfing question and golf it, leading others to follow suit and then a non-golfed answer looks out of place.

We badly need a way to enforce distinction of golf vs non-golf questions. I think the solution is to enforce one of a set of tags (like on meta) that defines the puzzle type is the solution. Any other ideas?

\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

I think we should classify the question on this site in 3 category: code-golf, puzzle and obfuscation. Each category has is own definition. Code-Golf is about solving the problem with the least amount of character. Puzzle is about finding solution to a problem with different approach. Obfuscation is about doing code obfuscation.

We could do like on MSO and force that we provide at least one of the tag to make sure all question are well defined.

\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

code-golf vs. coding-challenge seem sufficient to me, the distinction here being that golf problems aren't generally trying to solve anything that isn't basically trivial unless you are golfing. A coding challenge on the other hand is something that's at least mildly difficult to solve.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ How about we drop the coding-? All posts will be about code after all. We could also shorten code-golf to golf, but I'm less sure about that. \$\endgroup\$ – marcog Jan 28 '11 at 19:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ @marcog: In the early SO days, I did indeed use the golf tag for code golf, on the understanding that (PGA) golf is totally off-topic for SO. I was completely overruled, though. (I wanted to hunt down the meta.SO through where this happened, but I think it's been nuked.) It'd be interesting to try to reopen this topic for this site. \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Jester-Young Jan 28 '11 at 21:07
0
\$\begingroup\$

Seeing as how the name of this site is code-golf, I think everyone is going to assume golfing is supposed to happen

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ It doesn't have to remain that way. See this. \$\endgroup\$ – marcog Jan 29 '11 at 8:57
-1
\$\begingroup\$

A set of tags for criteria makes sense. e.g. a golf tag and an anti-golf tag and maybe (though this is debatable) an obsfucation tag. one of which must be applied to any question

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I suppose, that anti-golf is too subjective and looks like usual reason for close questions on any stackexchange site because of questions of this type are too open ended. Also see current ideas about must be tags here and here. \$\endgroup\$ – Nakilon Jan 28 '11 at 18:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ No one's going to come up with a complete set of tags, unless we want to reject all question types we can't think of at the moment. \$\endgroup\$ – Matthew Read Jan 28 '11 at 18:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ no one said the set had to be static, just that all actual code questions must have a criteria-type tag... you can create new tags at question asking time \$\endgroup\$ – tobyodavies Jan 29 '11 at 0:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .