This answer has a number of example images and a link to the website that produced them. Following the link allows viewing the code that produced them, but the only explanation given within the answer is:

I've found that bump mapping can add a lot to the look of ice. Using bump maps both when calculating refraction rays, and when calculating lighting

To me this sounds intriguing and makes me wish there was more detail, rather than just external code and pictures. I feel that the explanation would make this into a complete answer.

While this is my personal preference, and affects my voting, what should our policy be? The policy will determine whether answers are flagged or simply not voted as positively.


1 Answer 1


Yes it does. Images and links are a great supplement to turn a great answer into an amazing answer, but they will rarely be a full answer on their own (unless the image is a relevant info graphic say, but even then it would be nice if the answer could survive the image being taken down). Answers on SE sites should be self-contained to be as future-proof as possible. In addition, mentioning a keyword and showing some pictures might be enough to point you in the right direction, but a good answer could give a short explanation of the concepts used and even more importantly explain why the method works and what its advantages and disadvantages are.

I think it's important that we keep these things in mind, because on a computer graphics site it's especially easy to give a quick upvote to an answer which just contains a stunning image without realising that the answer is not actually very informative.


You must log in to answer this question.

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