Should we fix backticks?

Question

I would still like to look into doing this, because it is tedious in the extreme to edit every single instance of misused backticks into italics, and because almost no one ever fixes these. Therefore we should just “do the right thing” and map backticks into <i>...</i> not into <code>...</code>. Anyone who actually needs computer code on ELU can always just use <code>...</code> directly.

---

Often, new users to ELU come here from one or another computer-code–based Stack Exchange site like Stack Overflow itself. Programmers who are used to using monospaced inverse video for code segments are often unaware of the typographic conventions and expectations of actual English, such as are explained in this answer.

In short, they unwittingly use word when they should be using word instead. This makes the site look ugly, so this ends up getting corrected in an edit to set the word or phrase in italic the way it always should have been.

I propose that we ask the Stack Exchange development team to kindly switch around how backticks work on ELU so that they are equivalent to any other way of specifying italics, like with stars or underscores. Then for those extremely rare occasions when actual computer code is needed, the existing <code>computer code</code> notation could still be used just like today.

This would not affect indented “code” paragraphs used in tables. It would only be for inlined backquoted material.

This seems like a win-win solution. It makes the site more new-user–friendly for programmers coming from other Stack Exchange sites, it saves time, it makes ELU look better and better conform with standard typographic expectations, and it doesn’t remove anything that we are currently able to do.

Should we do this? Why or why not?

---

Two points.

First, I should add that I have no idea whether this is even doable. The style sheets and programming for converting markdown that they use here might well too closely tie together these two input forms:

1. <code>text</code>
2. ˋtextˋ

. . . for this proposal to be possible at all. I don’t know.

From the point of view of the Stack Exchange programming team, doing this may be trivial, it may be easy, it may hard, it may be impossible. I have no idea which of those applies. Obviously if it is impossible, it cannot be done, and if it is hard, probably is not worth doing compared with other things on their to-do list. But in the event that it is possible and not too much trouble, I think we should consider doing it.

Secondly, please note carefully that this proposal is not suggesting that we mess with the first form at all, nor with the indented code paragraphs used for tables. It is simply to map the backtick Markdown form into <i>text</i> in the resulting HTML, instead of into <code>text<code>. It provides another way to get at italic, since that is what it is usually (but not 100% always) used for.

Those people who for whatever reason really want do inverse-video monospaced text would still be able to access that functionality without any new programming being required, since it already works as <code>text</code>. Nothing would be made available. It is just to help new users from programming-related Stack Exchange sites, who may not be used to the standard conventions of regular English. This is not a programming site, so it should not look like one.

Answer 1

If our users never used other Stack Exchange sites, maybe, but since we are part of a large network, consistency trumps convenience. It would be better to address this through education (like in the FAQ).

It would also be reasonable to ask SE if we can add to (not alter) the markup help on a per-site basis, which would allow us (and any other SE site with similar needs) to document our local formatting conventions.

Answer 2

I am against. For one thing, I really need code formatting sometimes, as in Proto-Indo-European roots, where Markup (or what is it called?—asterisks and such) messes up my words. Then there are other uses. There is no serious problem (just looks) and removing any kind of functionality will not only mess up older questions but also limit what we can do, in both foreseen and unforeseen ways, as above.

Answer 3

The issue is that people are confusing semantic marking with display presentation.

Markup (and markdown) constructs are for indicating semantic types like emphasis using *asterisks* and strong emphasis using **double asterisks**. The presentation of those styles as italic and bold is a style question. Except for HTML SE's poor support for underlines, I suppose we could have just as easily chosen u̲n̲d̲e̲r̲l̲i̲n̲e̲ for the display of emphasis. Likewise, SE could switch all italics with bolds and it should have no effect whatsoever on the meaning of anyone's content.

The backtick is just another one of these semantic markers, a "code" or "literal" type. But part of its semantics is the implication that markdown is literalized, <em>like here</em>. On a coding-oriented forums the code type is displayed as highlighted monospace because that's useful to coders. On an English-language-oriented forum code could be displayed as bold italic or whatever is useful to that community. But it would still have to support literalization/escape of markdown characters inside code blocks.

However, one real issue is that people use the code type for non-semantic reasons; i.e., they are trying to control how their content is displayed -- taking advantage of the monospace or highlight to simulate tables, for example. People shouldn't have been doing this, but SE really offers no alternative. Changing code will break all these. Not saying that's bad, though.

Answer 4

Generally speaking we should start with trying to reduce the amount of newly created posts with that kind of markup by creating awareness for the style that we do want to have on ELU.

I am pretty sure there are no statistics about how many people type the backticks and how many use the according button ({}), but the latter one is a WMD button. The functionality of this button could be enhanced. Furthermore, if one enters too many tags in the tag field a warning shows up as soon as one selects the sixth tag or leaves the field.

I would propose a similar - not as red - information showing up if one uses code markup in any way. It could be displayed as soon as one presses the {}-button or as soon as one leaves the body field of the question.

It could read something like "Mono-spaced markup is disrupting the appearance of sentences, please consider using italics", or when used in the complete line fashion, "Please consider using a quote section rather than pre-formatted text."

I am not sure if those warnings can incorporate links. If that's possible the link to a proper style guide for ELU can be included. (I know that currently there is no such thing in a single post.)

Then there is a second awareness that needs to be created. The editor awareness. Currently there is a lot of knowledge on how to edit scattered in dozens of meta posts, mostly answers, some of them accepted, some of them not, not even all of them the highest voted. As a relatively new ELU user I know that the normal way to get to know them is to have them linked by an experienced user. After that, one can favorite it and pay the good deed forward.

The preferred usage of italics on ELU is exactly such a thing. It came to my attention after one of my posts was edited (although from bold to italics) and a certain comment was provided. There is no information in the tour or the editing privileges page, or anywhere to indicate anything about italics.

On the contrary, there is even code markup on the edit privileges page on the formatting page, which is understandably full of code markup, is also no mentioning of anything like that.

TL;DR & suggestions

• Add backtick / code markup warning
• Add information about restraining use of code markup to help pages
• Create a proper edit guideline on meta (CW; Single point of reference)
• Create a proper format guideline on meta (CW; Single point of reference)

Answer 5

I am strongly against this for one reason only: it encourages and validates the misuse of backticks.

On the rest of the network, as it is we already have quite enough trouble training users (particularly those from certain places of the world) not to use backticks for emphasis.

The last thing we need is a site literally saying "your backticks will be converted to emphasis formatting; go ahead and have fun"!

You could remove the backtick feature from ELU entirely.

Answer 6

I'm also against changing how backticks are displayed. I use them deliberately for their effect and never use them for italics.

The formatting is visible 'live' beneath the editing window on the standard site, and it's certainly visible after posting even if accessing the site from a phone. Whatever people use for formatting, the effect of the formatting is easily checked.

It would be better to assume that people who use backticks do so deliberately. So long as Stack Exchange allows freedom of formatting, and provided the formatting isn't so garish as to obstruct comprehension, that deliberate choice should be upheld.

Answer 7

There are cases where back ticks are quite useful. For instance, when telling someone what Google argument to use it's much clearer to say synonym pope than "synonym pope" (should the user include the quotes or not?) or synonym pope. And recently I wanted to discuss [sic], and any other sort of "quoting" would have been confusing.

Yeah, I suppose there is some <keyword>...</keyword> notation that will present the same, but it would be much more awkward to use, and blocking the actual use of back ticks in such cases is simply being punitive against those who are doing nothing wrong.

Answer 8

I agree with both sides of this. I think that backtics should be displayed as italics, however, I think leaving the option for users to use additional formatting should be left open.

a way to do this is to leave the normal html elements to their normal display

so that <code></code> tags still display the way they are expected to.

If a user gets confused, we should provide an article mentioning the "remapping" of the backtic while mentioning that normal html elements behave the same way

Answer 9

I've had cause to use backticks on ELU from time to time. Not very often, because it's not a common need on ELU, but it has come up.

I'd rather that ability wasn't taken away.

It would also encourage people to misuse backticks on stackexchange as a whole.

Answer 10

IDEA #1: Remap "`" and preserve "< code >"

Another Solution, is to add a new markdown character. As I responded, I agree that backtics should be "remapped" and the way HTML elements should be displayed should be preserved.

Why IDEA #1 is bad:

However, Hot Links brought up an issue: Using HTML is awkward, and not as convenient as regular markdown.

Also, as mentioned (by Monica Cellio), "remapping" is not good for new users coming from other SE sites, because we would be the one SE site against a million not using backtics the traditional way

IDEA #2: Remap "`" and introduce double/triple backtics ("``"/"```")

So, an alternative, is to still "remap" the backtics, but add a new markdown charater/character sequence.

Perhaps we could use the triple backtic (```) to represent code formatting, sort of like github does?

or even shorten it to a double backtic (``)?

Why IDEA #2 is OK-ish:

This would also give us a "meet-in-the-middle" between those who think it should not be "remapped" (for good reason).

Of course, it would be helpful to new users if we mentioned in the side bar that backtics are "remapped" on this site, and new "forms" of the backtic have been introduced.

It's still not perfect, because new users from other SE sites could still often get confused

IDEA #3: Do not remap "`"

Instead add an article on the side bar or provide a notification asking users to be wary of their usage of "`"

Why IDEA #3 is bad:

Users will still use backtics badly on this site.

Footnote:

The basic problem this site has with backtics (just to clarify), is that there is a proper and an improper way to use them on this site.

So, the problem comes down to what is more important and less of a risk in this community? (Favors attracting new users) Confusing new users from other SE sites? (Favors turning new users into experienced users) or encouraging a "proper" usage of backtics in this community?

Additional Important Footnote:

So the big problem with deciding what to do with this is none of the solutions are perfect.

However, they could be seen as good solutions for certain time periods in the community's development.

If the community was just starting to begin to develop, perhaps idea #3 is the most appropriate; if the community is no longer at the beginning, but still developing, perhaps idea #2 is the most appropriate; if the community was extremely large, and we had a large amount and portion of well-seasoned ELU users, perhaps idea #1 is the most appropriate.