I'm seeing a lot of questions recently along the lines of, "Convert this SQL query to LINQ for me" followed by a copy/paste of a SQL query.  I've started voting to close when I see these under "Must show a minimal understanding" but each time I see that others are happy to provide answers.  Just wondering what the consensus is here?
123210
This morning I ran across the following 'question' on SO, where the user is asking for his VB.NET code to be converted to C# --    I don't feel like this is a real question, but what does everyone else think
90248
Assuming you can't use LINQ for whatever reason, is it a better practice to place your queries in stored procedures, or is it just as good a practice to execute ad hoc queries against the database (say, SQL Server for argument's sake)?
42896
I read with interest  and the comment . I also read  and  the infamous FAQ answer   With rare exceptions, such as , the MSO attitude seems to be that people responding to questions have a "right" to choose not to directly answer the question in favor of an answer which basically tells the OP they "shouldn't be doing it that way". The advice all focuses on the information the OP should provide to avoid this kind of response rather than suggesting that those providing answers should be respectful of questions and not make assumptions that there is some underlying problem that the OP is trying to solve that should be addressed instead.  In rationalizing the approach of not answering the question, two "carpenter" analogies were used, one involving a question about how to cut balsa wood and the other involving a question which of two non-tool household items is better to pound a nail. In both cases, they ask the rhetorical question of whether it's better to answer the question or challenge the question.  My MSO question here is: Why do so many seem to think they have to choose between these two ways of responding? Why don't folks consider answering the question and supplementing their answer as they wish with questions, challenges, additional information, editorial opinion, etc. Not only is that more respectful to the OP, it's more respectful to future readers who arrived at the answer based on the question asked. If I do a search about how to cut balsa wood, I don't want to land on an answer that just tells me what a bad idea it is to use balsa wood in house construction.  Update: While I don't want to focus on specific examples, in response to some of the answers/comments, here's a recent one where I was the one asking the question:      Although it would take me a while to uncover examples, the more common occurrences I run into are where someone shares some code and an error they are getting and ask why they are getting that error. Instead of explaining the error, the answers typically propose some other approach. Admittedly, the OP is often times satisfied with that answer and not knowing why the error occurred, but I would contend the community is the poorer for it and, as a rule, this practice unnecessarily runs the risk of offending.
117190
I was looking for a possible duplicated question about  in , then looked using the Big G! since the integrated search didn't give me any useful result (laugs) then I found the , but in Stackoverflow! Then, I proceed to flag as off-topic, but since "It's too old to migrate" I don't have the option to do so...  So, my question is, should I leave it like that? Or the question is better in UL (also on topic, just read the question)? Any guidance to this young pada-wan is greatly appreciated.
36185
Please have a look at . When the question was asked by the OP, it had a scope related problem in the code snippet posted in it. 2 answers were posted for that question. But after the answers were posted, a friend of mine from Stack Overflow, edited the question(not sure with what intention) in such a way that the bug in the code was gone(it actually self answered the question). Please have a look at the question revision history, where I've rolled back the question to the original state, which has the problem in place.  My question is that, should such a practice be allowed/encouraged that an edit to a question renders all the answers posted for that question, totally irrelevant? As anybody who comes to have a look at the question later, will be highly confused as to why a question was asked without any problem and there were so many answers posted to it(not everybody cares to go through the revision history)? I happened to notice that, but not everybody would notice it.
9182
Just recently,  question was posted. Here's the body of the question:     Write a function called highlight() that prompts the user for a string. Your code should ensure that the string is all lower case. Next, prompt the user for a smaller 'substring' of one or more characters. Then replace every occurrence of the substring in the first string with an upper case. Finally, report to the user how many changes were made (i.e., how many occurrences of the substring there were).      What would a script for this be?   This is basically a "do my homework for me" style question. In the past, I would have voted to close this question for lacking minimal understanding and moved on. However, it looks like this close reason was removed, and I'm having difficulty figuring out which alternative to use (if at all).  Here were some of the close reasons I was considering, and ultimately decided against since they didn't seem to precisely match:   Duplicate of    I sort of doubt there exists a precise duplicate of this question -- the question is a fairly specific request for some code. I could maybe link to a duplicate question that answers a part of the original (for example, checking if the string is lowercase), but it wouldn't answer every aspect of the problem. Problem that can't be reproduced/typographical error    This sort of matches, since it asks the user to produce a SSCCEE, but doesn't really match since there isn't even a problem to begin with (and closing a question because I couldn't "reproduce" a non-existent problem feels a bit silly to me) Unclear what you're asking    It's pretty obvious what the user is asking -- I could produce a 5 line script in about 20 seconds that precisely matches his spec. Too broad    The text for "Too broad" states that "There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format". This doesn't apply to this question -- once again, the answer I could give would be fairly short and would closely resemble solutions other people would give.   So, what should I do here? Am I misunderstanding how the close reasons should now be used? Should I use the "other" close reason and explain that the OP should have put in more effort? Should I simply downvote, perhaps leave a comment, and move on? Or is the new policy to embrace these kinds of questions and just post an answer?
20570
Background: Over the next month, I'll be giving three talks about or at least including LINQ in the context of C#. I'd like to know which topics are worth giving a fair amount of attention to, based on what people may find hard to understand, or what they may have a mistaken impression of. I won't be specifically talking about LINQ to SQL or the Entity Framework except as examples of how queries can be executed remotely using expression trees (and usually IQueryable).  So, what have you found hard about LINQ? What have you seen in terms of misunderstandings? Examples might be any of the following, but please don't limit yourself!   How the C# compiler treats query expressions Lambda expressions Expression trees Extension methods Anonymous types IQueryable Deferred vs immediate execution Streaming vs buffered execution (e.g. OrderBy is deferred but buffered) Implicitly typed local variables Reading complex generic signatures (e.g. )
99918
I just failed , which was shown as being closed as "Not a real question".  Seeing as the vote count was positive, I figured it was an audit, but I selected "Leave Closed" anyways because to me     It's difficult to tell what is being asked here.  This question is ambiguous, vague...   There's no code examples, and the phrasing is clunky at best.  This is my second failed audit in two days for difficult questions (first failed audit is , also now closed), so if I get temporarily suspended, it won't be the end of the world (I'll think of it as a forced vacation).    That said, is there a way to dispute these audits?  Or is posting the audit here sufficient?
72822
NOTE The audience of programmers.se and dba.se is different, and will have different viewpoints, so in this instance I think it's valid to duplicate  on programmers.se.  I couldn't find discussion on dba on this already, and the original post says it all, so:     Most software developers want to keep   application logic in the application   layer, and it probably feels natural   for us to keep it here. Database   developers seem to want to put   application logic in the database   layer, as triggers and stored   procedures.      Personally I would prefer to keep as   much as possible in the application   layer to make it easier to debug and   keep the responsibilities of the   layers separate.      What are your thoughts on this, and   what should or should not be ok to   implement in the database layer?   N.B. I'm not the OP for that question, but left the original wording intact.
8205
It annoys me when people post answers to obviously off-topic questions like , especially after those questions have already received several close votes. Migrations seem to happen rather infrequently these days, so there's probably no reputation to gain for questions that are likely to be closed. And although sure, the answer may help the OP, it also encourages bad behavior (posting off-topic questions.)  Is it appropriate to downvote these answers?   Personally, I think I could make a case for both sides.
53331
I just found  , and I must say I found it very useful; however, it was closed as "Off topic". Now, it hasn't generated all that many page views, but I would have loved it if it was open, in case something new came up in the past year it was closed.   The "Off topic" specification doesn't exactly explain what the problem is with the question; I see the point for Stack Overflow, given there is no actual coding problem discussed - but a user in that post points out:     (That aside, prepare for your question to be closed, it's a bit too close to "please provide me a list of", which isn't muchly appreciated)   Now, the thing is, a lot of times I actually would appreciate greatly a "provide me a list of" question, like in this case - however, I can see the point in this posting in particular not being on-topic for Stack Overflow.   My question then is - is there a place where such "listing" questions about computer software in general can be asked? I don't think it would fit in programmers.SE, and one may think superuser.com would be appropriate - but then again, its purpose could be understood as specific questions about how to do more advanced stuff with existing software, thereby excluding again listing questions.   If that is so, then where do such question belong? If Super User on the other hand is appropriate, wouldn't the referred post be better off moved to Super User, and opened for contributions there - instead of sitting on Stack Overflow closed?
90334
I have noticed a significant number of suggested edits that attempt to fix code, or change the original meaning of someone else's post.    Is this really a good idea?    I've been on StackOverflow awhile, and among the editors who have sufficient reputation to edit without approval, I've never seen anyone modify the technical content or meaning of someone else's post.   I would consider obvious syntax and spelling errors OK to change, but I have seen many suggested edits that change the meaning of the code that was posted, or add things to the code that have nothing to do with the original question. A good example of this would be adding parameters to a SQL command, when the question was not asking about SQL injection.
100871
We don't migrate posts cause they can be answered by professional and enthusiast programmers. We migrate them because they are to do with SO careers, Teams or other products primarily on SO.        The current wording is somewhat misleading.  Could we have the wording for migration to this site reviewed and corrected?
57833
There is a certain amount of questions that are absolutely trivial in nature: How to format a date, how to concatenate a string, et cetera. Questions that could be solved by taking a look into the manual.  Random examples from the tags I frequent:                What those OPs need is a link to the right manual, which we should give them. But the question serves no purpose. They don't even have a use by being searchable,  because any sane search query would lead to the actual manual as the first hit.  Jeff discusses the possibility of introducing a new close reason for this over at  According to Robert's suggestion there, it could go like this:     general reference: this question is too basic; the answer is indexed in any number of general internet reference sources designed specifically to find that type of information.   Please please implement this.  Add a field (like the "enter duplicate ID here" popup) for users to suggest the correct manual link:    The suggested links would then be shown in a block in the top section of the question, like duplicate links.   Also, the amount of reputation earnable from these trivial questions is appalling. I'm sure a great portion of most high-rep users' points (including mine) is from answering "what was that function for replacing a string again?" type questions. This dilutes the value of reputation as a measure of true expertise a great deal.  I would suggest that answers to questions that get closed as "general reference" are made community wiki retroactively, taking away any reputation earned.
111192
I've got a situation where I need to use LINQ's ExecuteCommand method to run an insert.  Something like (simplified for purposes of this question):  object[] oParams = { Guid.NewGuid(), rec.WebMethodID };  TransLogDataContext.ExecuteCommand ( "INSERT INTO dbo.Transaction_Log (ID, WebMethodID) VALUES ({0}, {1})", oParams);   The question is if this is SQL injection proof in the same way parameterized queries are?
32177
...not literally, of course.  But what happened to the previous menu of close-vote options?  I find the current set unsatisfactory. Take  for example.  Obviously, the question is worthless, because it's an exception that even a n00b programmer should be able to debug on his own. There is nothing special about this bug, and it will help no one in the future.  What could I possibly select as a close reason?   duplicate of... - Maybe. There's the classic  which has been linked to . While the debugging techniques are the same, that's for .NET.  Besides, there are any number of other common exceptions / simple development bugs that wouldn't apply. off-topic because...   ... This question was caused by a problem that can't be reproduced or a simple typographical error. While similar questions may be on-topic here, this one was resolved in a manner unlikely to help future readers. This can often be avoided by identifying and closely inspecting  before posting.Notes below....  unclear what you're asking - No, it's clear that the programmer just needs to debug his code. too broad - No, it's quite specific. primarily opinion-based - Nope.   When it was introduced, I was happy to see a "typo" reason, to rid out all the stupid indentation or bracket questions. But... we no longer have a "lacks minimal understanding" reason, which I think is incredibly important. After all, Stack Overflow is here to solve problems that  encounter... not teach users how to code or debug.  So.... what do I pick?  Can we have another revision on the close vote reasons?  I did a cursory search, but couldn't find a Meta post to the intent behind this latest set of reasons. Edit: I believe this is it:     Edit 1/20  Ah, how could I forget about the classic copy &amp; paste homework assignment?      Right or wrong, my close vote was cast with      off-topic because it shows zero desire to actually understand the problem.      we see a moderator closing a question about an incorrect number of function parameters as lacks sufficient information to diagnose the problem. Of course, there probably is sufficient information, and the wording should really be changed to You're too lazy to RTFM.
86186
What is the difference between IQueryable&lt;T&gt; and IEnumerable&lt;T&gt;?    See also  that overlaps with this question.