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

I asked a question about paradigms quite a while ago, and got zero useful answers. Since the question is an accumulator-type question (subjective and opinion but not a poll) I would like to offer a bounty for every (decent) answer provided (over and above the +1-thanks-for-contributing courtesy upvote), but of course this feature does not exist.

Anybody else want this kind of feature?

Example: for the referenced question, I would expect that there are a dozen or so paradigms worth mentioning, some of which i have no experience with at all, so I'd like to offer 50 or 100 points per answer to help get the information "out there"

I could ask a dozen or so questions, one per paradigm, but I'm way too lazy busy for that, plus I may overlook a paradigm or two that way.

EDIT: this is not a request for "supervotes", it's more like a multi-accept with a bounty. [though i like the idea of 'supervotes' for different purposes]

share|improve this question
Sounds like you want supervotes:… – random Oct 2 '09 at 3:41
@[random]: negative on the "supervotes", this is not the same thing. see edit. – Steven A. Lowe Oct 2 '09 at 3:48
So it's kind of like divving up a bounty across several answers?… – random Oct 2 '09 at 4:16
@[random]: that's closer but still not quite the same; but one 'accepted' answer doesn't make sense for this kind of question... – Steven A. Lowe Oct 5 '09 at 2:37

The problem with this proposal is that it gives more control to the question asker, which is good for the asker, but not so much for the answerer, because it introduces a great deal more uncertainty.

On regular bounty questions, as long as someone has more than 2 upvotes on their answer, they know with certainty that one individual will receive at least half the bounty amount for that question, or the entire amount if the owner selects an accepted answer. No splitting. They are competing for that guaranteed reward. If you instead switch to a system where they may or may not receive a smaller bounty for each and every answer, then the playing field becomes much more varied. Some askers may be very stingy with their multi-accepts, offering them only the minimal amount required. Others may be very generous, offering them to pretty much anyone who provides an answer.

Not only does this introduce uncertainty into the reward scheme for bounties, it also sets up a situation where some individuals will be recognized as generous and (possibly) exploited for their multi-accepts, and reviled if they are withheld. Others will be recognized as stingy. We've already seen the impact that revealing the acceptance rate has on answerers' behavior. Introducing another reason to consider who is asking rather than what is being asked seems, to me, to be unnecessary.

That said, it might be possible to come up with a way to implement this that is fair and minimizes the uncertainty for those providing answers, but it isn't immediately obvious to me what that would be.

share|improve this answer
1/2 bounty for autoselect – hyperslug Oct 2 '09 at 14:08
@hyperslug: Error parsing input: sentence fragment at line 1 ... Huh? :) – ベレアー アダム Oct 2 '09 at 14:13
@Adam, sorry, I meant if the system selects the answer instead of the owner, only 1/2 the bounty is awarded. – hyperslug Oct 2 '09 at 14:26
@hyperslug: Thanks, updated my response. :) – ベレアー アダム Oct 2 '09 at 14:29

You must log in to answer this question.

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