Calvin's Hobbies posted on Mother Meta about increasing the character limit for posts across the Stack Exchange network. This answer shows that it is possible to increase the limit from the standard 30,000 characters for individual SE sites, and this has already been doubled for Code Review.

To allow questions to have both a comprehensive spec and description, plus a substantial Stack Snippet, should we increase the character limit for PPCG? Would doubling the limit work for us too, or is there a reason to have more still?

Examples where both spec golfing and controller golfing were required due to the 30,000 character limit:

Or should we change it to a smaller limit...?

  • 12
    \$\begingroup\$ I say "doubled", but actually for Code Review it has been more than doubled, to the nice round number 65,536. \$\endgroup\$ – trichoplax Sep 24 '15 at 7:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ Why not just host the JS (+HTML) externally? It solves the problem of having massive scrollbars on the code snippets too. \$\endgroup\$ – grc Sep 24 '15 at 11:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ @grc If necessary I'll link to a jsfiddle but I really like the idea of a self contained question which runs the challenge/example/answer validator directly in the same page. \$\endgroup\$ – trichoplax Sep 24 '15 at 11:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's not something I'd recommend spending time and effort on, but if increasing the limit is just a matter of changing a parameter, why not...? \$\endgroup\$ – trichoplax Sep 24 '15 at 11:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ @grc as for the scrollbars, see Calvin's Hobbies' Red vs Blue where the code is all put on one line. This gives only a horizontal scrollbar and no wall of text in a question for which the code is not intended to be read (it's still available in readable form externally for anyone wishing to read it). \$\endgroup\$ – trichoplax Sep 24 '15 at 11:33
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I mean <script src="external.js"></script> in the code snippet - it's still run on the page. \$\endgroup\$ – grc Sep 24 '15 at 11:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ @grc I had misunderstood. That's a good point. I'd still rather not depend on the persistence of external sources, but hopefully we'll see arguments for both sides in the answers. \$\endgroup\$ – trichoplax Sep 24 '15 at 11:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @trichoplax Is that limit inclusive? Also, it's for questions and answers? \$\endgroup\$ – mbomb007 Sep 29 '15 at 19:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mbomb007 if by inclusive you mean the maximum number of characters is 30,000 rather than 29,999 then yes I believe it is inclusive (although I don't have a source for that). \$\endgroup\$ – trichoplax Sep 30 '15 at 7:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mbomb007 I think the same maximum applies to both questions and answers. It appears that there is just a single limit parameter from the comment on Code Review but I don't know for certain. If you feel strongly either that they should or should not be the same length, you could post an answer here mentioning both questions and answers. \$\endgroup\$ – trichoplax Sep 30 '15 at 7:20

I increased the limit to 65536 to match Code Review. There's an auto flag for very long posts, so a moderator will have an opportunity to delete or edit unnecessarily long posts. As a rule, giant posts are not good for a site. But if someone really needs to post extremely long code, they can.

  • 11
    \$\begingroup\$ Thanks very much for doing this! Since we encourage people to "sandbox" challenges on meta before posting to main, would you be happy to also increase the post limit on meta (which is currently still 30000), or should this be a new feature request? \$\endgroup\$ – trichoplax Jul 15 '17 at 23:57


The post character limit should be doubled to the same length as Code Review's.

The two most common reasons for the character limit on other Stack Exchange sites (people posting logs, or their entire source code for people to read through) are invalid when applied to PPCG. There won't be anyone posting logs on a PPCG question for obvious reasons. And though people may post the entire source code of a Stack Snippet, the reader is not expected to read through the code.

My hopes are that increasing the character limit will result in even more ambitious challenges utilising Stack Snippets in creative ways.



I feel that this really goes against the spirit of this website. Programming Puzzles and Code Golf, and all. If anything, I say to reduce the post limit.

  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Do you want questions and answers to be more limited in length regardless of whether they are golf posts? \$\endgroup\$ – trichoplax Oct 6 '15 at 13:35
  • 17
    \$\begingroup\$ Please golf your answer. I see unnecessary whitespace at the very least. \$\endgroup\$ – Geobits Oct 6 '15 at 13:58
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ #No<LF>Against site spirit.Reduce post limit. \$\endgroup\$ – wizzwizz4 Apr 7 '16 at 20:48
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @wizzwizz4 Your comment with code didn't use code formatting. Please use `#No<LF>Against site spirit.Reduce post limit.` the next time you comment with code. \$\endgroup\$ – Peanut Aug 3 '16 at 21:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ Golf many bytes: Programming Puzzles and **Code Golf**, -> PP**CG**. \$\endgroup\$ – Erik the Outgolfer Nov 20 '16 at 11:34

You must log in to answer this question.

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