Loading collection data...
Collections are a way for you to organize kata so that you can create your own training routines. Every collection you create is public and automatically sharable with other warriors. After you have added a few kata to a collection you and others can train on the kata contained within the collection.
Get started now by creating a new collection.
!
+1 for downvote. It's really unfortunate when solutions that are problematic have lots of best practices upvotes.
I rather like the idea of upvoting best practice comments, rather than directly upvoting a best practice, as having a solution voted best practice doesn't really do much for most folks.
+1 for downvote. I've seen a lot of inappropriate "best practices".
I think it's a really shame.
What about the following alternative to downvotes: allow "Issue" comments on solutions.
+1 for downvote.
I don't think it's enough to just add a constructive comment to a bad solution that has a tonne of upvotes. I doubt if a large number of users even read the comments.
I've only been a member for a day and already noticed the problem described by others here.
I like the idea of requiring a comment for a downvote, and I like the idea of requiring one for an upvote too. I find the solutions disappointingly devoid of discussion, this may help.
Upvote comments sound good, but you can get upvotes with "Wow, so short -> best practice", so I still think down-vote isn't a bad idea.
What about having a best practice upvote require either making a comment that's linked to the best practices upvote, or upvoting a best practices comment? I think that the best practice feature would be much more useful if we could see why a solution is considered to be using best practices.
For what it's worth I don't think clever needs a similar system since it's usually self evident and it's not as important a vote as best practices.
It's a joke. They just submitted enough times for the "random()" call to return 10, but they said their lucky number was 10 so it looks planned.
@jhoffner conceptually, your solution doesn't make much sense - when you're storing the temperature, you add a timestamp to it which is the date at which the next-to-be-stored temperature was taken, not of the actual temperature you're storing. Also, you store a null value as the first temperature. Seems to me the test cases aren't very well written.
Working, now!
Try it now.
No worries ;P
Sorry, didn't know you could also resolve suggestions.
Do you want to mark this suggestion as resolved or whatever?
Issue still persists. Edit profile > link acc to Github results in:
Loading more items...