What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 130 Stack Exchange communities.

Is it possible to split up the amount of points given to a user (via question up-vote) based on if they have accepted an answer?

As it stands, a +1 to a question gives the asker +5 points on their reputation. What I'd like to see is maybe the points broken down to a 2/3 split. For example, on an up-vote they receive +2 with +3 contingent on accepting an answer.

I see this is being a great way to promote accepting answers as I'm starting to notice a lot more people with poor accept ratings [new-comers excluded]. Knowing they could get that extra boost by just following-through might act as an incentive (also maybe show (on the asker's version of the question page) how many points are pending making it obvious they have work left to do).

A possible down-side could be that people start accepting invalid/insufficient answers just so they get their whole +5, but the vote system on answers already keeps that in check, IMHO. I've seen plenty of 0-vote answers become accepted (with 3+ vote answers by the wayside either due to the asker wanting to quick-accept or just because a better answer came along later).

Thoughts?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 5 down vote accepted

I think your downside is too strong to overcome for this. I've seen numerous people who have been told "you need to accept more answers" just go through all their questions accepting answers apparently at random... when often, their question was not good enough to elicit answers in the first place.

I don't think points for asking a good question should be linked to getting/noting an accepted answer, basically.

share|improve this answer
    
Also fyi: though I disagree with your idea, I didn't downvote it :P –  Andrew Barber Nov 7 '11 at 21:10
    
It's just frustrating seeing good questions become neglected because someone has a poor accept rating. Instead of people answering the question (maybe not even for the sake of the asker as much as future visitors/reference) you see habitual "work on accepting answers" and people move on. All i'm looking for is a way to avoid it, while also upping the incentive to accept answers. So splitting isn't an acceptable method, any other thoughts on motivating users? –  Brad Christie Nov 7 '11 at 21:20
    
I think the +2 Rep and having a high accept rate displayed is plenty reason to accept answers. People who ignore and are ignorant of those things will also be completely ignorant of and ignore this. –  Andrew Barber Nov 7 '11 at 21:22
    
I'm not sure I agree. From the perspective of someone just joining an "accept rating" can be convoluted (for instance, Accept could be interpreted as acceptance from the community [e.g. the person is well-respected] not necessarily that they never give people the answer acknowledgement) –  Brad Christie Nov 7 '11 at 21:26

No.

The user already has a +2 incentive when he or she accepts an answer. And this additional incentive is only an incentive as long as the question actually gets upvoted. On the other hand, the user could ask the most interesting question in the world. Everybody far and wide agrees, and the user earns the most upvotes the site has ever seen. Should that user not earn the reputation simply because despite the question's popularity, nobody has been able to give a sufficiently correct answer?

Not to go off an a rant here, but the continual focus on acceptance rates continues to be disturbing and it is counterproductive. The green checkmark is but one metric that determines an answer's usefulness, there are also votes. So while the judge on whether or not an answer exists that solves the user's problem is up to the user, and the user is free to exercise or not exercise that option, the rest of the community is free to vote up the answers they feel are correct. Therefore, the absence of a green checkmark for an answer otherwise voted up to +8 or +12 is inconsequential. The users that find the question via google are not looking for the check, they are looking for solutions. It's in that user's interests that we disgregard the asker's acceptance rate. It's in our own interests, as well, as the rep we gain offsets whatever +15 we are worried about not getting.

If you want to encourage people to accept answers, make it systematic. We have prompts for everything. We get prompted when we haven't voted on questions in a while. We get notified when we get a new badge. A user with a low accept rate doesn't to be told by everybody that their accept rate is low. Readers of that user's questions that find it via google do not care that the user's accept rate is low. I would hide the dern statistic from the average user entirely, let it be a metric strictly between the specific user and the website, and let the website be the one to notify the user that their participation with the community (via the acceptance mechanism) could use some work. Leave the rest of us (and reputation point incentive) out of it.

It's just frustrating seeing good questions become neglected because someone has a poor accept rating. Instead of people answering the question (maybe not even for the sake of the asker as much as future visitors/reference) you see habitual "work on accepting answers" and people move on. All i'm looking for is a way to avoid it, while also upping the incentive to accept answers. So splitting isn't an acceptable method, any other thoughts on motivating users?

This underscores my point. The problem isn't the acceptance rate, it's certain members of the community reacting to it. Hide it. Get rid of it. It's unimportant to 99.9999% of the viewers of the question. A good acceptance rate is never noticed, and a "bad" one only performs a disservice to virtually everyone. Let it be between the website and the user. Prompt them however often seems appropriate.

share|improve this answer
    
I think you hit the points that I (poorly) eluded too. The acceptance rating is highly respected by the masses but servers no real purposes other than a means to not help (which in-it-of-iteself is counterproductive to the community). Maybe the answer is as simple as that: remove the acceptance rating and have it only apply negative side-effects to the end-user and not to the rest of the community as a metric to measure the worth of a person. –  Brad Christie Nov 7 '11 at 21:51
    
Absolutely! I'm all for the system annoying the pants off of the asker. Feel free, notify them as often as you want. Just keep it out of the public eye, let us dwell upon the actual programming problem instead of some participation metric. –  Anthony Pegram Nov 7 '11 at 21:57

You must log in to answer this question.

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