2 added 6 characters in body
source | link

Bounties make more sense if you think of them as paying for advertising your question. That the bounty may end up being given to someone is just so as to encourage answers. Once you know that, the rules are:

  • absolutely nothing will ever cause your bounty to be awarded to you, ever
  • the bounty-giver can award it to whoever they want for whatever reason they want [1]
  • if the bounty-giver doesn't award it, the system might, using rules that are trying to be at least partly fair but don't need to be perfect.

The attempts are auto-awarding are

  • to an answer accepted during the bounty period if the bounty-giver is the accepter (except not to self answers) - if you don't like that, manually award the bounty
  • to the answer provided during the bounty period that got the most votes (except not an answer by the bounty awarder, and not if "the most votes" is 1 or less) - if you don't like that, manually award the bounty

That bounties might go unawarded or that the auto bounty might not go to the most deserving answer are both considered 'shrug' no big deal. Stuff happens. Answering bounty questions can be pretty random, so you can't deserve a bounty, and the awarder can do what they like. The auto thing is there to help if someone is flat out forgetful, but if itthe bounty doesn't happen to land on a good questionanswer, or if it evaporates, so be it.

[1] For example on meta it has been known for a bounty to be given to someone on a random question as a way of rewarding them for a great CW answer or a great edit on a whole other question. I don't think this is as socially accepted elsewhere, but it is not considered fraud or bad behaviour within the stackexchange community.

Bounties make more sense if you think of them as paying for advertising your question. That the bounty may end up being given to someone is just so as to encourage answers. Once you know that, the rules are:

  • absolutely nothing will ever cause your bounty to be awarded to you, ever
  • the bounty-giver can award it to whoever they want for whatever reason they want [1]
  • if the bounty-giver doesn't award it, the system might, using rules that are trying to be at least partly fair but don't need to be perfect.

The attempts are auto-awarding are

  • to an answer accepted during the bounty period if the bounty-giver is the accepter (except not to self answers) - if you don't like that, manually award the bounty
  • to the answer provided during the bounty period that got the most votes (except not an answer by the bounty awarder, and not if "the most votes" is 1 or less) - if you don't like that, manually award the bounty

That bounties might go unawarded or that the auto bounty might not go to the most deserving answer are both considered 'shrug' no big deal. Stuff happens. Answering bounty questions can be pretty random, so you can't deserve a bounty, and the awarder can do what they like. The auto thing is there to help if someone is flat out forgetful, but if it doesn't happen to land on a good question, or if it evaporates, so be it.

[1] For example on meta it has been known for a bounty to be given to someone on a random question as a way of rewarding them for a great CW answer or a great edit on a whole other question. I don't think this is as socially accepted elsewhere, but it is not considered fraud or bad behaviour within the stackexchange community.

Bounties make more sense if you think of them as paying for advertising your question. That the bounty may end up being given to someone is just so as to encourage answers. Once you know that, the rules are:

  • absolutely nothing will ever cause your bounty to be awarded to you, ever
  • the bounty-giver can award it to whoever they want for whatever reason they want [1]
  • if the bounty-giver doesn't award it, the system might, using rules that are trying to be at least partly fair but don't need to be perfect.

The attempts are auto-awarding are

  • to an answer accepted during the bounty period if the bounty-giver is the accepter (except not to self answers) - if you don't like that, manually award the bounty
  • to the answer provided during the bounty period that got the most votes (except not an answer by the bounty awarder, and not if "the most votes" is 1 or less) - if you don't like that, manually award the bounty

That bounties might go unawarded or that the auto bounty might not go to the most deserving answer are both considered 'shrug' no big deal. Stuff happens. Answering bounty questions can be pretty random, so you can't deserve a bounty, and the awarder can do what they like. The auto thing is there to help if someone is flat out forgetful, but if the bounty doesn't happen to land on a good answer, or if it evaporates, so be it.

[1] For example on meta it has been known for a bounty to be given to someone on a random question as a way of rewarding them for a great CW answer or a great edit on a whole other question. I don't think this is as socially accepted elsewhere, but it is not considered fraud or bad behaviour within the stackexchange community.

1
source | link

Bounties make more sense if you think of them as paying for advertising your question. That the bounty may end up being given to someone is just so as to encourage answers. Once you know that, the rules are:

  • absolutely nothing will ever cause your bounty to be awarded to you, ever
  • the bounty-giver can award it to whoever they want for whatever reason they want [1]
  • if the bounty-giver doesn't award it, the system might, using rules that are trying to be at least partly fair but don't need to be perfect.

The attempts are auto-awarding are

  • to an answer accepted during the bounty period if the bounty-giver is the accepter (except not to self answers) - if you don't like that, manually award the bounty
  • to the answer provided during the bounty period that got the most votes (except not an answer by the bounty awarder, and not if "the most votes" is 1 or less) - if you don't like that, manually award the bounty

That bounties might go unawarded or that the auto bounty might not go to the most deserving answer are both considered 'shrug' no big deal. Stuff happens. Answering bounty questions can be pretty random, so you can't deserve a bounty, and the awarder can do what they like. The auto thing is there to help if someone is flat out forgetful, but if it doesn't happen to land on a good question, or if it evaporates, so be it.

[1] For example on meta it has been known for a bounty to be given to someone on a random question as a way of rewarding them for a great CW answer or a great edit on a whole other question. I don't think this is as socially accepted elsewhere, but it is not considered fraud or bad behaviour within the stackexchange community.