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:
Are people less tolerant of questions from users with a low accept rate?

Hy, I always wondered if there is some "habit" around stackoverflow of not answering if somebody has accept rate of 0.
Sure you could answer to that question's but is there some sort of "codex". Because sometimes it seems that if somebody has an accept rate of 0, and the question get downvoted to hell also the answers, which are right also get downvoted ! Thanks for the answers ;-)

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by ChrisF, Yi Jiang, Shadow Wizard, BinaryMisfit, Gilles Feb 20 '12 at 12:16

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.

up vote 1 down vote accepted

In general speaking I think that this is a community, and in the community the one help the other.

Now if some one show signs of not like to help anyone, by not accept answers, not voting at all, not give answers, not participate in general, and have very low score, this is a minus for give him more time for help


to give more time and help more to the person that give help, vote (means that read the questions and the answers and help with the vote), give answers, have more than some points etc.

I respect more the people that help, thy give time from his life to help, so when they need help they deserve more attention.

Now if you notice I speak for time. If the answer is fast and simple personally always replay, and I have replay to many people with 0% accept rate, and zero votes, but if the question is too complicate I avoid them and I spend my time to some other. Many times I see that new users do not know that they need to accept answers, and because maybe the answers can not satisfy them (maybe the look for the full source code than just the idea how to solve it). So they take their time...

Some days ago I find a user with 7 questions, 9 months on SO, and ZERO vote, with a difficult question. Its a rare case - I avoid to answer, just comment. Now I see that is accept 2 answer, still the question is difficult.

of course in a community there is always the weak that need more help, but you do not ask many from them, just to say if work or not the answer that they have. If they do not like to participate not even to that, so other readers of the questions knows if work or not, then they give they intentions - they are only takers... and they not belong to a community yet.

share|improve this answer

I think that with users who have 0% accept rate you could defend that "content problems and un-salvageable" might be reached earlier: sometimes there is involvement from the poster needed ("question is reasonable, but it misses such and such information") to get the question up-to-par, and an active user might be nudged into doing this, whereas an inactive user might not.

A user that doesn't go back to accept answers probably won't go back to edit their question (huge generalisation), so apart from the "I only scratch your back if you scratch backs too" principle, the change that this question should be closed might be higher.

That would be reasoning behind closing these questions earlier. Not answering would be up to each user themselves ofcourse, and voting down correct answers would be plain wrong imho.

share|improve this answer

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