0

Before adding a new close reason, it must be consulted with the community. The new close reason would be "Not reproducible or was caused by a typo". It was already discussed 6 years ago but there was no closure and I think I can't add the new close reason based on the old voting.

EDIT: Now questions which could use this close reason are closed with other reasons so this new close reason gives better explanation for the question poster.

Please vote on this post for this new close reason. You can share your thoughts about it in comments or as answer.

Stack Overflow has this close reason and I would use their texts:

Input Title

Not reproducible or was caused by a typo

Input Guidance

While similar questions may be on-topic here, this one was resolved in a way less likely to help future readers.

It looks like this in close reason selection:


enter image description here


Post Owner Guidance

This question was caused by a typo or a problem that can no longer be reproduced. While similar questions may be on-topic here, this one was resolved in a way less likely to help future readers.

Privileged User Guidance

This question was caused by a typo or a problem that can no longer be reproduced. While similar questions may be on-topic here, this one was resolved in a way less likely to help future readers.

Concensus Description

Closed. This question is not reproducible or was caused by typos. It is not currently accepting answers.

This post notice looks like this:

enter image description here

EDIT: This close reason and its wording was fine tuned by SO Meta members in collaboration with moderators and CMs.

3
  • Would it not be better for someone to create an answer showing the OP what/where the typo is, rather than just closing the question (with potentially no explaination)? It is a good and valid way of getting upvotes in the community.
    – sa_leinad
    Aug 30 at 3:42
  • Admittedly, it would not necessarily be helpful for others searching for answers. It would increase the hay to needle ratio.
    – sa_leinad
    Aug 30 at 3:44
  • @sa_leinad, arduino.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2667/…
    – Juraj Mod
    Aug 30 at 5:35
2

I just closed one that could have been closed as this. However it's no hardship to just do a custom close with your own message. Do we really need a other close reason?

2
  • that is the question. some months ago somebody mentioned it in a comment on a just closed question. now exploring the mod tools I found out mods can add community close reasons but have to consult on Meta with the community. While writing the Meta post, Meta suggested the old question about the same close reason. And there are 8 upvotes and no downvote.
    – Juraj Mod
    Sep 4 at 6:11
  • 1
    a prepared close reason can be tracked in stats
    – Juraj Mod
    Sep 4 at 6:13
1

I was uncertain about this, however I must admit that this question is a good case in point. The problem was confusing = with == in code. This is not so much a typo as a misunderstanding of the C++ language, however if the question were to remain it would just be solving one person's coding problem, without really contributing to the general Arduino knowledge-base.

However I do have a problem with this:

This question was caused by a typo or a problem that can no longer be reproduced.

Surely they are widely different things? A typo is just a typing error, for example misspelling a word, using capitals in the wrong way, and so on.

A problem that can no longer reproduced is a totally different beast. You might try the posted code out and not reproduce the results the poster claimed. Surely this is something else? Maybe your environment, or hardware, was different?

Even the question I quoted above wasn't really a typo (unless you accidentally typed = instead of ==) but more likely to be a confusion about how C++ works compared to, say, SQL.

How about three close reasons? :)

  • A typo (eg. mistyping float as flat).
  • A lack of understanding of C++, which would apply whether or not you were using the Arduino (eg. using = for an equality test)
  • A problem that cannot be reproduced. (eg. a = 2 + 2 giving 5, when everyone else gets 4).
5
  • this SO Meta describes the "not reproducible" as I understand it: meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/289151/… In this sense the reason is right in both parts for the linked question.
    – Juraj Mod
    Sep 2 at 7:12
  • The close reason and its wording was fine tuned by SO Meta members in collaboration with moderators and CMs so I would prefer to leave it as it is. What maybe could be added is a "basic wiring error" for ground not connected or data lines swapped.
    – Juraj Mod
    Sep 2 at 7:19
  • I liked: "Not reproducible, or trivial."
    – Nick Gammon Mod
    Sep 2 at 8:11
  • I found a comment about "trivial" in the Meta post I linked: "I'd really hate having "trivial" as one of the close reasons. There are so many things that seem trivial to some people..."
    – Juraj Mod
    Sep 2 at 9:13
  • I read a “mental typo” counts as a typo too. It was for a question answered with a comment "why would your program print the output you want if you don't issue any printing commands"
    – Juraj Mod
    Sep 3 at 12:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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