Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

Possible Duplicate:
Fastest Gun in the West Problem

People are often fascinated about how fast are some questions answered on stackoverflow. Stackoverflow made a very good job involving game ideas in the process, but it has at least one downside - IMO:

There are many people (me among them) who are waiting for new questions and rush to respond. Usually among similar answers the one which was answered first is upvoted. Often people tend to answer first with essential things and then improve their answer on the way.

This leads in my opinion to:

  1. Rush
  2. Poor quality answers in the beginning

Proposed solution: Lock voting on answers for an hour since the question was asked.


I've seen by many users a suggestion to the OP to not accept an answer immediately, but wait at least an hour. Interesting.

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Cody Gray, Toon Krijthe, user7116, kiamlaluno, ChrisF Jul 10 '12 at 14:51

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

This has come up a few times before. – Tim Post Aug 11 '11 at 9:26
It's not the same. IMO – user167422 Aug 11 '11 at 9:59
No. This will lead to drastic decrease in voting, which is low already. – Shadow Wizard Aug 11 '11 at 10:05
or let users vote, but hide the votes for an hour? – user167422 Aug 11 '11 at 10:10
If you post a low quality answer, it will get downvoted. It doesn't matter how quickly you post it. This is a problem that solves itself. Don't post low quality answers, and downvote those that you see posted. This feature request moves in exactly the wrong direction. We want to encourage good answers to be upvoted and bad answers to be downvoted, not prevent voting altogether. – Cody Gray Aug 11 '11 at 11:59
up vote 3 down vote accepted
  1. What is wrong with people rushing to answer a question? That is a good thing for the answer. If you don't want to feel rushed don't try to answer questions that are minutes old.

  2. If a answer is not of good quality then downvote it. Although, I normally don't see that. Instead I normally see a quick answer although possibly shorter answer and then an example or links added later. There is nothing wrong with this.

We want to encourage more voting and this proposal does the opposite by limiting voting.

share|improve this answer
>If a answer is not of good quality then downvote it. Sometimes the answer is partially good, and later a better one appears, but you vote this one, as you don't have alternatives. – user167422 Aug 11 '11 at 11:51
Hmm. I posted nearly the exact same thing as a comment before reading your answer. Guess that means I agree: here's your +1. – Cody Gray Aug 11 '11 at 12:01
@user167422: If an answer is only "partially good", then why upvote it? No one is forcing you to vote. It's nonsensical to say that "you don't have alternatives". – Cody Gray Aug 11 '11 at 12:01

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