Timeline for Why are "reference request" questions off topic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 1, 2021 at 9:39 | comment | added | Anon | Searching through libraries or databases for documents is something best done by a search engine, not for a question on a Stack Exchange site. Catch 22 when you consider that the search engine most often points us to stack exchanges. | |
| Apr 12, 2017 at 7:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 19:45 | vote | accept | Xodarap | ||
| Nov 30, 2012 at 19:37 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | @Xodarap It was flagged for off-topic in addition to the vote to close. Probably just a misclick on my part - it's not off-topic, but it still seems to be not constructive (or at least not well defined) at this point. If it gets flagged or close votes, it will likely be closed again (but easily reopened). If you need more help editing it, jump into chat and I'm sure someone will help you make it better. | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 19:35 | comment | added | Xodarap | I'm certainly open to the criticism that my question wasn't clear, and should've been closed as too vague. I just don't understand why it would be off topic. | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 18:48 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | @Xodarap Also, that question is a problem that can be solved. Another example of a good question. "Is testable code more stable?" is a bad question for a Stack Exchange site - it's obvious to any professional. "Are there metrics that can be used to predict defects?" is a good question. "Given my time constraints, should I increase testability or fix a defect?" is also a good question since it's about a problem that lots of people may have. | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 18:47 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | @Xodarap I know those are all measurable - my background is in software measurements and empirical software engineering. Your root question is still "Is testable code is actually more stable?" The answer is common knowledge - I did a quick search of the IEEE and ACM databases, and it doesn't seem like there's anything that addresses this because it's common knowledge. If you're looking for a relationship between a given metric or set of metrics and defects or defect density, ask about those specifically. Also, you can't restrict people to only providing references. | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 18:44 | comment | added | Xodarap | PS: I have five hours of dev time. Should I spend it refactoring the code to make it more testable, or fixing an existing bug? The answer may be "obvious" to you, but it's not to me, nor most developers. | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 18:42 | comment | added | Xodarap | Component coupling is measurable, defect rate is measurable, and correlation is measurable. In fact, these are measured extremely frequently. Why do you think it's unlikely that data exists? | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 18:34 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | @Xodarap The key is "supported by". However, there are unlikely to be any of the type of facts that you want for something that is so clearly obvious. | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 18:31 | comment | added | Xodarap | "nor do they allow for answers to be supported by facts" - That's all I'm asking for! My phrasing was poor, but I don't want an answer like "in my experience..." as I will get answers like you gave ("It's obvious."). I want something like "component coupling is correlated with defect rate at rho = .8". Is there a better way to phrase this? | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 17:51 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 625 characters in body |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 17:45 | history | answered | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |