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.

I think this has been discussed before, If that is true, I can't find where this has been discussed, accept my apologies for asking the same question again.

I wanted to give my two cents for this.

So as we all know whenever a new question gets asked, everyone races to be the first to answer it. While this is not a bad thing, what ends up happening is the first to answer the question gets the most attention. Even if the answer is not quite complete.

But if someone else also answering the same question spends a bit more time to put more detail into it, the answer ends up generally, last in the list. Because usually they are viewed by the number of votes (to my understanding).

Since while the long answer took longer, the shorter faster one rose to the top of the list because of all the votes that were received during that time.

Don't get me wrong, that last answer still manages to get some attention, but not as much as the first one. Because chances are all of the people that voted for the first one, are not coming back to view the question again, so that they can re-cast their vote for the better answer, which happened to land near the end of the list because that answer-er took a bit longer to give a more complete answer.

So my suggestion would be, for freshly asked questions, why display the answers the minute they are posted? Why not wait for some pre-determined time before displaying at the same time all of the posted answers, to give a chance to the potential answer-ers to write a more complete answer.

This way we don't have to rush to be the first to answer something sacrificing detail, just to be the first to answer it.

For new questions, wouldn't it be better to wait for say, 3 or 4 answers, or 5 minutes whichever comes first to display all of the initial answers?

I could be thinking totally wrong about this, but I wanted to post this to the community and see what you make of it.

Thanks for listening.

share|improve this question
8  
"I think this has been discussed before" is the understatement of the month :). I believe this specific solution has been brought up before, but I can't find it. This is one reason it's unlikely to happen though –  Michael Mrozek Jul 28 '10 at 18:56
2  
If one person posts an excellent answer 1 minute after I post, why should I have to wait 5 minutes or until other people post in order to get that answer? This is punishing the question asker for getting good service. –  Grace Note Jul 28 '10 at 18:57
    
@Michael, thanks I read that, but I am more thinking along the lines of what @Sparr said in a comment on that answer: "Taking your stance as valid, I think there is still an issue whereby most question-posters will not come back a day+ later to upvote/select the best answer. If there was some [more obvious / greater] incentive to do that then I could agree with you more completely." –  7wp Jul 28 '10 at 19:08
    
Rats. I thought this was going to be a request for a feature that helped me answer faster. :-( –  tvanfosson Jul 28 '10 at 20:23
    
@tvanfosson haha! maybe I should re-word the question :-) –  7wp Jul 28 '10 at 20:30

1 Answer 1

In general, and this has been stated before, we don't want to discourage people from posting answers quickly.

The reason this site works so well is because there is lots of incentive to post good answers quickly.

share|improve this answer
1  
There's quickly and then there's really quickly. –  James Clark Dec 12 '11 at 5:33

You must log in to answer this question.

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