2

Is there a standard convention for onChange handlers for react components?

This question attracted -3 votes within the first hour of posting.

It relates to function signatures for onChange on React input-like components.

What's wrong with it, if anything, and what could be done to improve it/which Stack Exchange would the question be more appropriate?

| |
3

This looks just like another example of hostile downvoting which I was trying to fight formerly here. I have no problems with cases where downvotes are accompanied by nothing but a close vote, since this could replace a comment to some degree. But leaving just a downvote (like done here) is clearly not constructive, since it does not show any indication of what the asker might have done wrong. I don't expect any of the downvoters here to show up on meta to explain themselves, they seem to prefer hiding in their anonymity.

That said, I think the question in stake is not really a good question as it is written, since it seems to present a working solution, and gives me the impression of asking for a discussion or general feedback for it (not literally, but that is not the point). However, the SE sites are not discussion sites, and the community here on SE.SE prefers questions with real issues, not just vague non-issues.

If, for example, the question would look like

I tried out to standardize the handler signatures in the following way, but this leads to issues X and Y

and then asking about a solution for X and Y, that might be something way more answerable. And it would show your efforts to test your design first by yourself before asking others, which is currently not apparent.

Another problem I see with the question, it is actually hard to understand without the example behind the external link. Such external sources tend to have a life time shorter than a question on SE, so better take the time, put the relevant code snippet into the question, and remove the link to the external code sample.

Let me add, in between the question got also 3 upvotes, maybe counter-upvotes, since fortunately there seem to be enough people here in the community who disagree with those hostile downvoters and try to balance their behaviour.

| |
  • 5
    Downvoting without explanation has a long, detailed history on the platform, which I won't go into detail about here. Suffice it to say that I don't explain my downvotes anymore because 1. The op will usually get into an argument with me about them, and 2. The new CoC and "Welcome Wagon" makes it very difficult to do so without appearing to be "not nice." Nobody is ever obligated to explain their downvotes, and my advice is "Don't." Cast your votes, and let the system work. – Robert Harvey Nov 2 '19 at 19:51
  • 1
    @RobertHarvey: fair enough. – Doc Brown Nov 2 '19 at 23:14
  • Well, I've been out of the moderator business for awhile now. How have things been going so far? – Robert Harvey Nov 19 '19 at 2:36
  • @RobertHarvey: you ask this as if you have you been totally absent from this site for a while. But as far as I can see, you have been around here almost daily, so you surely know what's going on here. And site analytics does not seem to show anything remarkably since Sept 29. If you ask me for my subjective opinion: I am not under the impression the homepage is flooded with questions requiring a quick closing/deletion. – Doc Brown Nov 19 '19 at 4:33
  • @RobertHarvey: just found this answer on meta - that is actually the way I would like to see moderation happen, and it seems to present the exact opposite approach of what you wrote in this older comment. So I think it is great that you, as your vote isn't binding any more, are here amongst us other high-rep users and can vote for closing, deletion, undeletion and reopening more freely. – Doc Brown Nov 19 '19 at 6:36
  • It would be immensely useful if there were enough people voting to close so that it didn't take 12 hours to remove obviously off-topic questions from the site. – Robert Harvey Nov 19 '19 at 15:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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