4 replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link

There's a corollary to this.

The suggestion is to reward people for finding (correct) duplicates. However, as Josh CaswellJosh Caswell noted there are plenty of users, with enough reputation to close a question, who'll answer questions and not bother to find the duplicate. This suggestion does absolutely nothing to address that.

Anyone can easily get 20-30 rep (add another 15 if the user is nice enough to accept) by answering a question that they know should be a duplicate of another. If the goal of participation is reputation a measly 10 rep for doing the decent thing and trying to keep the site clean doesn't stack up1 against the potential gain for an answer.

Effectively, you're trying to reward doing good when most of those involved know that they can obtain a greater reward by being "bad".

Before I continue I think it's very important to note that any suggestion should not detract from each sites main purpose. That is, to make it easy for people on the internets to gain a good, quick, answer to their question. I'm not entirely certain that the following proposal sticks to this purpose absolutely.

Counter Proposal:

I recognise that this might seem a little harsh but something has to be done to stop the larger sites (Stack Overflow in particular) from drowning in a sea of questionssea of questions.

Rather than trying to reward good why not try to game the system so that people are less likely to do bad? I'm defining bad as asking or answering a duplicate question rather than tracking down the original and voting to close.

Any user who asks or answers a question that subsequently gets closed as a duplicate gets 0 reputation for their post. In order to stop this being too harsh I would add a couple of caveats:

  1. You still get reputation for your answer being accepted. This reduces the risk that people will stop answering obvious duplicates completely.
  2. There should be a time-limit, something reasonable, for instance 30 days. This means that a someone who posts a perfectly decent question or answer won't get punished a year later when the question subsequently gets closed as a duplicate..
  3. It doesn't matter if the reputation gain was limited to some other arbitrary (small) number. The point is to partially disincentivise answering dupes.

I doubt the askers care anywhere near as much but it's unfair to punish the answerers alone when the askers are identically at fault.

The obvious problem with this is that all closing as a duplicate might stop instantly. I doubt it as there will always be some decent people around. However, when combined with an incentive, for instance 5 or 10 reputation for being the first to find a duplicate (as per the feature request) you raise the spectre of the dupe finders being rewarded more than the answerers. That should make finding duplicates more attractive.

There's also the darker side of human nature that can be brought into play. You create the perverse incentive to find the duplicate to stop the person who got there just before you from getting 50 rep for answering an easy question. It's not pretty but I can see it happening. Thinking about it, and because of this, maybe it should be 10 rep and not 0. You don't necessarily want the duplicate finder to be rewarded more than the answerer and it'll stop some of the extra nasty stuff.

1. Forgive the pun.

There's a corollary to this.

The suggestion is to reward people for finding (correct) duplicates. However, as Josh Caswell noted there are plenty of users, with enough reputation to close a question, who'll answer questions and not bother to find the duplicate. This suggestion does absolutely nothing to address that.

Anyone can easily get 20-30 rep (add another 15 if the user is nice enough to accept) by answering a question that they know should be a duplicate of another. If the goal of participation is reputation a measly 10 rep for doing the decent thing and trying to keep the site clean doesn't stack up1 against the potential gain for an answer.

Effectively, you're trying to reward doing good when most of those involved know that they can obtain a greater reward by being "bad".

Before I continue I think it's very important to note that any suggestion should not detract from each sites main purpose. That is, to make it easy for people on the internets to gain a good, quick, answer to their question. I'm not entirely certain that the following proposal sticks to this purpose absolutely.

Counter Proposal:

I recognise that this might seem a little harsh but something has to be done to stop the larger sites (Stack Overflow in particular) from drowning in a sea of questions.

Rather than trying to reward good why not try to game the system so that people are less likely to do bad? I'm defining bad as asking or answering a duplicate question rather than tracking down the original and voting to close.

Any user who asks or answers a question that subsequently gets closed as a duplicate gets 0 reputation for their post. In order to stop this being too harsh I would add a couple of caveats:

  1. You still get reputation for your answer being accepted. This reduces the risk that people will stop answering obvious duplicates completely.
  2. There should be a time-limit, something reasonable, for instance 30 days. This means that a someone who posts a perfectly decent question or answer won't get punished a year later when the question subsequently gets closed as a duplicate..
  3. It doesn't matter if the reputation gain was limited to some other arbitrary (small) number. The point is to partially disincentivise answering dupes.

I doubt the askers care anywhere near as much but it's unfair to punish the answerers alone when the askers are identically at fault.

The obvious problem with this is that all closing as a duplicate might stop instantly. I doubt it as there will always be some decent people around. However, when combined with an incentive, for instance 5 or 10 reputation for being the first to find a duplicate (as per the feature request) you raise the spectre of the dupe finders being rewarded more than the answerers. That should make finding duplicates more attractive.

There's also the darker side of human nature that can be brought into play. You create the perverse incentive to find the duplicate to stop the person who got there just before you from getting 50 rep for answering an easy question. It's not pretty but I can see it happening. Thinking about it, and because of this, maybe it should be 10 rep and not 0. You don't necessarily want the duplicate finder to be rewarded more than the answerer and it'll stop some of the extra nasty stuff.

1. Forgive the pun.

There's a corollary to this.

The suggestion is to reward people for finding (correct) duplicates. However, as Josh Caswell noted there are plenty of users, with enough reputation to close a question, who'll answer questions and not bother to find the duplicate. This suggestion does absolutely nothing to address that.

Anyone can easily get 20-30 rep (add another 15 if the user is nice enough to accept) by answering a question that they know should be a duplicate of another. If the goal of participation is reputation a measly 10 rep for doing the decent thing and trying to keep the site clean doesn't stack up1 against the potential gain for an answer.

Effectively, you're trying to reward doing good when most of those involved know that they can obtain a greater reward by being "bad".

Before I continue I think it's very important to note that any suggestion should not detract from each sites main purpose. That is, to make it easy for people on the internets to gain a good, quick, answer to their question. I'm not entirely certain that the following proposal sticks to this purpose absolutely.

Counter Proposal:

I recognise that this might seem a little harsh but something has to be done to stop the larger sites (Stack Overflow in particular) from drowning in a sea of questions.

Rather than trying to reward good why not try to game the system so that people are less likely to do bad? I'm defining bad as asking or answering a duplicate question rather than tracking down the original and voting to close.

Any user who asks or answers a question that subsequently gets closed as a duplicate gets 0 reputation for their post. In order to stop this being too harsh I would add a couple of caveats:

  1. You still get reputation for your answer being accepted. This reduces the risk that people will stop answering obvious duplicates completely.
  2. There should be a time-limit, something reasonable, for instance 30 days. This means that a someone who posts a perfectly decent question or answer won't get punished a year later when the question subsequently gets closed as a duplicate..
  3. It doesn't matter if the reputation gain was limited to some other arbitrary (small) number. The point is to partially disincentivise answering dupes.

I doubt the askers care anywhere near as much but it's unfair to punish the answerers alone when the askers are identically at fault.

The obvious problem with this is that all closing as a duplicate might stop instantly. I doubt it as there will always be some decent people around. However, when combined with an incentive, for instance 5 or 10 reputation for being the first to find a duplicate (as per the feature request) you raise the spectre of the dupe finders being rewarded more than the answerers. That should make finding duplicates more attractive.

There's also the darker side of human nature that can be brought into play. You create the perverse incentive to find the duplicate to stop the person who got there just before you from getting 50 rep for answering an easy question. It's not pretty but I can see it happening. Thinking about it, and because of this, maybe it should be 10 rep and not 0. You don't necessarily want the duplicate finder to be rewarded more than the answerer and it'll stop some of the extra nasty stuff.

1. Forgive the pun.

3 Migration of MSO links to MSE links
source | link

There's a corollary to this.

The suggestion is to reward people for finding (correct) duplicates. However, as Josh CaswellJosh Caswell noted there are plenty of users, with enough reputation to close a question, who'll answer questions and not bother to find the duplicate. This suggestion does absolutely nothing to address that.

Anyone can easily get 20-30 rep (add another 15 if the user is nice enough to accept) by answering a question that they know should be a duplicate of another. If the goal of participation is reputation a measly 10 rep for doing the decent thing and trying to keep the site clean doesn't stack up1 against the potential gain for an answer.

Effectively, you're trying to reward doing good when most of those involved know that they can obtain a greater reward by being "bad".

Before I continue I think it's very important to note that any suggestion should not detract from each sites main purpose. That is, to make it easy for people on the internets to gain a good, quick, answer to their question. I'm not entirely certain that the following proposal sticks to this purpose absolutely.

Counter Proposal:

I recognise that this might seem a little harsh but something has to be done to stop the larger sites (Stack Overflow in particular) from drowning in a sea of questionssea of questions.

Rather than trying to reward good why not try to game the system so that people are less likely to do bad? I'm defining bad as asking or answering a duplicate question rather than tracking down the original and voting to close.

Any user who asks or answers a question that subsequently gets closed as a duplicate gets 0 reputation for their post. In order to stop this being too harsh I would add a couple of caveats:

  1. You still get reputation for your answer being accepted. This reduces the risk that people will stop answering obvious duplicates completely.
  2. There should be a time-limit, something reasonable, for instance 30 days. This means that a someone who posts a perfectly decent question or answer won't get punished a year later when the question subsequently gets closed as a duplicate..
  3. It doesn't matter if the reputation gain was limited to some other arbitrary (small) number. The point is to partially disincentivise answering dupes.

I doubt the askers care anywhere near as much but it's unfair to punish the answerers alone when the askers are identically at fault.

The obvious problem with this is that all closing as a duplicate might stop instantly. I doubt it as there will always be some decent people around. However, when combined with an incentive, for instance 5 or 10 reputation for being the first to find a duplicate (as per the feature request) you raise the spectre of the dupe finders being rewarded more than the answerers. That should make finding duplicates more attractive.

There's also the darker side of human nature that can be brought into play. You create the perverse incentive to find the duplicate to stop the person who got there just before you from getting 50 rep for answering an easy question. It's not pretty but I can see it happening. Thinking about it, and because of this, maybe it should be 10 rep and not 0. You don't necessarily want the duplicate finder to be rewarded more than the answerer and it'll stop some of the extra nasty stuff.

1. Forgive the pun.

There's a corollary to this.

The suggestion is to reward people for finding (correct) duplicates. However, as Josh Caswell noted there are plenty of users, with enough reputation to close a question, who'll answer questions and not bother to find the duplicate. This suggestion does absolutely nothing to address that.

Anyone can easily get 20-30 rep (add another 15 if the user is nice enough to accept) by answering a question that they know should be a duplicate of another. If the goal of participation is reputation a measly 10 rep for doing the decent thing and trying to keep the site clean doesn't stack up1 against the potential gain for an answer.

Effectively, you're trying to reward doing good when most of those involved know that they can obtain a greater reward by being "bad".

Before I continue I think it's very important to note that any suggestion should not detract from each sites main purpose. That is, to make it easy for people on the internets to gain a good, quick, answer to their question. I'm not entirely certain that the following proposal sticks to this purpose absolutely.

Counter Proposal:

I recognise that this might seem a little harsh but something has to be done to stop the larger sites (Stack Overflow in particular) from drowning in a sea of questions.

Rather than trying to reward good why not try to game the system so that people are less likely to do bad? I'm defining bad as asking or answering a duplicate question rather than tracking down the original and voting to close.

Any user who asks or answers a question that subsequently gets closed as a duplicate gets 0 reputation for their post. In order to stop this being too harsh I would add a couple of caveats:

  1. You still get reputation for your answer being accepted. This reduces the risk that people will stop answering obvious duplicates completely.
  2. There should be a time-limit, something reasonable, for instance 30 days. This means that a someone who posts a perfectly decent question or answer won't get punished a year later when the question subsequently gets closed as a duplicate..
  3. It doesn't matter if the reputation gain was limited to some other arbitrary (small) number. The point is to partially disincentivise answering dupes.

I doubt the askers care anywhere near as much but it's unfair to punish the answerers alone when the askers are identically at fault.

The obvious problem with this is that all closing as a duplicate might stop instantly. I doubt it as there will always be some decent people around. However, when combined with an incentive, for instance 5 or 10 reputation for being the first to find a duplicate (as per the feature request) you raise the spectre of the dupe finders being rewarded more than the answerers. That should make finding duplicates more attractive.

There's also the darker side of human nature that can be brought into play. You create the perverse incentive to find the duplicate to stop the person who got there just before you from getting 50 rep for answering an easy question. It's not pretty but I can see it happening. Thinking about it, and because of this, maybe it should be 10 rep and not 0. You don't necessarily want the duplicate finder to be rewarded more than the answerer and it'll stop some of the extra nasty stuff.

1. Forgive the pun.

There's a corollary to this.

The suggestion is to reward people for finding (correct) duplicates. However, as Josh Caswell noted there are plenty of users, with enough reputation to close a question, who'll answer questions and not bother to find the duplicate. This suggestion does absolutely nothing to address that.

Anyone can easily get 20-30 rep (add another 15 if the user is nice enough to accept) by answering a question that they know should be a duplicate of another. If the goal of participation is reputation a measly 10 rep for doing the decent thing and trying to keep the site clean doesn't stack up1 against the potential gain for an answer.

Effectively, you're trying to reward doing good when most of those involved know that they can obtain a greater reward by being "bad".

Before I continue I think it's very important to note that any suggestion should not detract from each sites main purpose. That is, to make it easy for people on the internets to gain a good, quick, answer to their question. I'm not entirely certain that the following proposal sticks to this purpose absolutely.

Counter Proposal:

I recognise that this might seem a little harsh but something has to be done to stop the larger sites (Stack Overflow in particular) from drowning in a sea of questions.

Rather than trying to reward good why not try to game the system so that people are less likely to do bad? I'm defining bad as asking or answering a duplicate question rather than tracking down the original and voting to close.

Any user who asks or answers a question that subsequently gets closed as a duplicate gets 0 reputation for their post. In order to stop this being too harsh I would add a couple of caveats:

  1. You still get reputation for your answer being accepted. This reduces the risk that people will stop answering obvious duplicates completely.
  2. There should be a time-limit, something reasonable, for instance 30 days. This means that a someone who posts a perfectly decent question or answer won't get punished a year later when the question subsequently gets closed as a duplicate..
  3. It doesn't matter if the reputation gain was limited to some other arbitrary (small) number. The point is to partially disincentivise answering dupes.

I doubt the askers care anywhere near as much but it's unfair to punish the answerers alone when the askers are identically at fault.

The obvious problem with this is that all closing as a duplicate might stop instantly. I doubt it as there will always be some decent people around. However, when combined with an incentive, for instance 5 or 10 reputation for being the first to find a duplicate (as per the feature request) you raise the spectre of the dupe finders being rewarded more than the answerers. That should make finding duplicates more attractive.

There's also the darker side of human nature that can be brought into play. You create the perverse incentive to find the duplicate to stop the person who got there just before you from getting 50 rep for answering an easy question. It's not pretty but I can see it happening. Thinking about it, and because of this, maybe it should be 10 rep and not 0. You don't necessarily want the duplicate finder to be rewarded more than the answerer and it'll stop some of the extra nasty stuff.

1. Forgive the pun.

2 added 17 characters in body
source | link

There's a corollary to this.

The suggestion is to reward people for finding (correct) duplicates. However, as Josh Caswell noted there are plenty of users, with enough reputation to close a question, who'll answer questions and not bother to find the duplicate. This suggestion does absolutely nothing to address that.

Anyone can easily get 20-30 rep (add another 15 if the user is nice enough to accept) by answering a question that they know should be a duplicate of another. If the goal of participation is reputation a measly 10 rep for doing the decent thing and trying to keep the site clean doesn't stack up1 against the potential gain for an answer.

Effectively, you're trying to reward doing good when most of those involved know that they can obtain a greater reward by being "bad".

Before I continue I think it's very important to note that any suggestion should not detract from each sites main purpose. That is, to make it easy for people on the internets to gain a good, quick, answer to their question. I'm not entirely certain that the following proposal sticks to this purpose absolutely.

Counter Proposal:

I recognise that this might seem a little harsh but something has to be done to stop the larger sites (Stack Overflow in particular) from drowning in a sea of questions.

Rather than trying to reward good why not try to game the system so that people are less likely to do bad? I'm defining bad as asking or answering a duplicate question rather than tracking down the original and voting to close.

Any user who asks or answers a question that subsequently gets closed as a duplicate gets 0 reputation for their post. In order to stop this being too harsh I would add a couple of caveats:

  1. You still get reputation for your answer being accepted. This reduces the risk that people will stop answering obvious duplicates completely.
  2. There should be a time-limit, something reasonable, for instance 30 days. This means that a someone who posts a perfectly decent question or answer won't get punished a year later when the question subsequently gets closed as a duplicate..
  3. It doesn't matter if the reputation gain was limited to some other arbitrary (small) number. The point is to partially disincentivise answering dupes.

I doubt the askers care anywhere near as much but it's unfair to punish the answerers alone when the askers are identically at fault.

The obvious problem with this is that all closing as a duplicate might stop instantly. I doubt it as there will always be some decent people around. However, when combined with an incentive, for instance 5 or 10 reputation for being the first to find a duplicate (as you suggestper the feature request) you raise the spectre of the dupe finders being rewarded more than the answerers. That should make finding duplicates more attractive.

There's also the darker side of human nature that can be brought into play. You create the perverse incentive to find the duplicate to stop the person who got there just before you from getting 50 rep for answering an easy question. It's not pretty but I can see it happening. Thinking about it, and because ifof this, maybe it should be 10 rep and not 0. You don't necessarily want the dupeduplicate finder to be rewarded more than the answerer and it'll stop some of the extra nasty stuff.

1. Forgive the pun.

There's a corollary to this.

The suggestion is to reward people for finding (correct) duplicates. However, as Josh Caswell noted there are plenty of users, with enough reputation to close a question, who'll answer questions and not bother to find the duplicate. This suggestion does absolutely nothing to address that.

Anyone can easily get 20-30 rep (add another 15 if the user is nice enough to accept) by answering a question that they know should be a duplicate of another. If the goal of participation is reputation a measly 10 rep for doing the decent thing and trying to keep the site clean doesn't stack up1 against the potential gain for an answer.

Effectively, you're trying to reward doing good when most of those involved know that they can obtain a greater reward by being "bad".

Before I continue I think it's very important to note that any suggestion should not detract from each sites main purpose. That is, to make it easy for people on the internets to gain a good, quick, answer to their question. I'm not entirely certain that the following proposal sticks to this purpose absolutely.

Counter Proposal:

I recognise that this might seem a little harsh but something has to be done to stop the larger sites (Stack Overflow in particular) from drowning in a sea of questions.

Rather than trying to reward good why not try to game the system so that people are less likely to do bad? I'm defining bad as asking or answering a duplicate question rather than tracking down the original and voting to close.

Any user who asks or answers a question that subsequently gets closed as a duplicate gets 0 reputation for their post. In order to stop this being too harsh I would add a couple of caveats:

  1. You still get reputation for your answer being accepted. This reduces the risk that people will stop answering obvious duplicates completely.
  2. There should be a time-limit, something reasonable, for instance 30 days. This means that a someone who posts a perfectly decent question or answer won't get punished a year later when the question subsequently gets closed as a duplicate..
  3. It doesn't matter if the reputation gain was limited to some other arbitrary (small) number. The point is to partially disincentivise answering dupes.

I doubt the askers care anywhere near as much but it's unfair to punish the answerers alone when the askers are identically at fault.

The obvious problem with this is that all closing as a duplicate might stop instantly. I doubt it as there will always be some decent people around. However, when combined with an incentive, for instance 5 or 10 reputation for being the first to find a duplicate (as you suggest) you raise the spectre of the dupe finders being rewarded more than the answerers. That should make finding duplicates more attractive.

There's also the darker side of human nature that can be brought into play. You create the perverse incentive to find the duplicate to stop the person who got there just before you from getting 50 rep for answering an easy question. It's not pretty but I can see it happening. Thinking about it, and because if this, maybe it should be 10 rep and not 0. You don't necessarily want the dupe finder to be rewarded more than the answerer and it'll stop some of the extra nasty stuff.

1. Forgive the pun.

There's a corollary to this.

The suggestion is to reward people for finding (correct) duplicates. However, as Josh Caswell noted there are plenty of users, with enough reputation to close a question, who'll answer questions and not bother to find the duplicate. This suggestion does absolutely nothing to address that.

Anyone can easily get 20-30 rep (add another 15 if the user is nice enough to accept) by answering a question that they know should be a duplicate of another. If the goal of participation is reputation a measly 10 rep for doing the decent thing and trying to keep the site clean doesn't stack up1 against the potential gain for an answer.

Effectively, you're trying to reward doing good when most of those involved know that they can obtain a greater reward by being "bad".

Before I continue I think it's very important to note that any suggestion should not detract from each sites main purpose. That is, to make it easy for people on the internets to gain a good, quick, answer to their question. I'm not entirely certain that the following proposal sticks to this purpose absolutely.

Counter Proposal:

I recognise that this might seem a little harsh but something has to be done to stop the larger sites (Stack Overflow in particular) from drowning in a sea of questions.

Rather than trying to reward good why not try to game the system so that people are less likely to do bad? I'm defining bad as asking or answering a duplicate question rather than tracking down the original and voting to close.

Any user who asks or answers a question that subsequently gets closed as a duplicate gets 0 reputation for their post. In order to stop this being too harsh I would add a couple of caveats:

  1. You still get reputation for your answer being accepted. This reduces the risk that people will stop answering obvious duplicates completely.
  2. There should be a time-limit, something reasonable, for instance 30 days. This means that a someone who posts a perfectly decent question or answer won't get punished a year later when the question subsequently gets closed as a duplicate..
  3. It doesn't matter if the reputation gain was limited to some other arbitrary (small) number. The point is to partially disincentivise answering dupes.

I doubt the askers care anywhere near as much but it's unfair to punish the answerers alone when the askers are identically at fault.

The obvious problem with this is that all closing as a duplicate might stop instantly. I doubt it as there will always be some decent people around. However, when combined with an incentive, for instance 5 or 10 reputation for being the first to find a duplicate (as per the feature request) you raise the spectre of the dupe finders being rewarded more than the answerers. That should make finding duplicates more attractive.

There's also the darker side of human nature that can be brought into play. You create the perverse incentive to find the duplicate to stop the person who got there just before you from getting 50 rep for answering an easy question. It's not pretty but I can see it happening. Thinking about it, and because of this, maybe it should be 10 rep and not 0. You don't necessarily want the duplicate finder to be rewarded more than the answerer and it'll stop some of the extra nasty stuff.

1. Forgive the pun.

1
source | link
    Post Made Community Wiki by ben is uǝq backwards