Do we have a list of standard replies to common issues? E.g. what to reply when no attempt is shown, when the question is in an image, etc. D.W. seems to be already using their own list, but I think it would be good if it were standardized and easily accessible for everyone. More than often one can see the reply which doesn't explain why something is a problem, or the reply which is too rude (especially for HW problems, where people sometimes try to add a bit of sarcasm).
It would be even better if there were macros that allow you to quickly type them, e.g. you type
[no_attempt], and it expands into a text explaining the problem. Somewhat related, StackOverflow has "magic links", e.g.
[mcve] which expands into link to Minimal Complete & Verifiable Example page.
E.g. the ones I'm interested in could be something like this (of course, the text should be expanded, explained, softened, etc.):
[no_attempt]- no attempt in solving or googling is shown.
[no_reference]- it's not explained where the problem comes from (in particular, it's unclear whether it's a part of the programming contest).
[only_image]- the main contents of the post is in the image.
[mathjax]- MathJax should be used for math.
[not_defined]- a helper link which states that some notions or the problem statement are not properly defined. (After that, the user should specify what they want to be defined).
[use_pseudocode]- pseudo-code should be used instead of a real language.
[bad_title]- uninformative title.
[not_so]- programming/debugging are offtopic here.
[solution_check]- the question asks to check the solution.
We also should make it clear that these issues (well, at least some of them) are site policy and not the whims of particular commenters to avoid frustration and rude replies from the authors.