Return to Answer

###The meaning and behavior of "Accept"

###Issues with pinning accepted answers

###Proposed solutions to the problem of bad or wrong suggested answers

###Rationale for doing nothing at this time

###Appendix A: Accepted answer stats for Stack Overflow

###Gallbladder B: Accepted answer stats for Software Engineering

The meaning and behavior of "Accept"

Issues with pinning accepted answers

Proposed solutions to the problem of bad or wrong suggested answers

Rationale for doing nothing at this time

Appendix A: Accepted answer stats for Stack Overflow

Gallbladder B: Accepted answer stats for Software Engineering

First off, excellent suggestion, thanks for writing this up. We discussed this extensively internally, and while I'm declining it right now I don't think it's without merit - it's just not something we think is worth the added complexity right now.

We heavily discourage thanking people here. Not because we're rude, ungrateful people - that's an unrelated issue - but rather because it is noisy. Instead, we provide the folks asking questions with a built-in way to say "thanks" - the ability to "accept" an answer. This isn't predicated on reputation or experience, but rather on the simple fact that you had a problem and someone tried to help you solve it.

...Except when there is an accepted answer. Then it always appears first. Regardless of sort order. This one little inconsistency was added as a way to highlight the importance of an answer which is presumed to have actually helped at least one person solve an actual problem they faced. In practice, other readers tend to agree with the asker in the vast majority of cases.

Well, there's this one - unpinning when the answer score falls below some score threshold. And its slightly more complicated cousin, which wishes for downvotes to be considered by themselves. The only real issue with the former is that it adds complexity to a conceptually-simple system; the issues with the latter are detailed in the answers there.

As the example given above illustrates, simply deleting very bad answers can be an effective strategy here - this isn't always appropriate, but it does limit the potential for confusion. Of course, in cases where they can be edited without seriously deviating from the original meaning or intent, then that is preferable.

###Gallbladder B: Accepted answer stats for Programmers

^{_{(I would link to a SEDE query for this, but... SEDE is throwing fits today due to some ongoing maintenance.)}}

First off, excellent suggestion, thanks for writing this up. We discussed this extensively internally, and while I'm declining it right now I don't think it's without merit — it's just not something we think is worth the added complexity right now.

We heavily discourage thanking people here. Not because we're rude, ungrateful people — that's an unrelated issue — but rather because it is noisy. Instead, we provide the folks asking questions with a built-in way to say "thanks" — the ability to "accept" an answer. This isn't predicated on reputation or experience, but rather on the simple fact that you had a problem and someone tried to help you solve it.

…Except when there is an accepted answer. Then it always appears first. Regardless of sort order. This one little inconsistency was added as a way to highlight the importance of an answer which is presumed to have actually helped at least one person solve an actual problem they faced. In practice, other readers tend to agree with the asker in the vast majority of cases.

Well, there's this one — unpinning when the answer score falls below some score threshold. And its slightly more complicated cousin, which wishes for downvotes to be considered by themselves. The only real issue with the former is that it adds complexity to a conceptually-simple system; the issues with the latter are detailed in the answers there.

As the example given above illustrates, simply deleting very bad answers can be an effective strategy here — this isn't always appropriate, but it does limit the potential for confusion. Of course, in cases where they can be edited without seriously deviating from the original meaning or intent, then that is preferable.

###Gallbladder B: Accepted answer stats for Software Engineering

^{_{(I would link to a SEDE query for this, but… SEDE is throwing fits today due to some ongoing maintenance.)}}

A closely-related issue involves answers that were once very useful, but in the face of change have become out of date, obsolete, or simply less than ideal. Note that this can also be a problem with answers which were simply highly-voted during the period of time when they were correct, since votes do not age away. A related discussion on the maintenance of such answers.

Well, there's this one - unpinning when the answer score falls below some score threshold. And its slightly more complicated cousin, which wishes for downvotes to be considered by themselves. The only real issue with the former is that it adds complexity to a conceptually-simple system; the issues with the latter are detailed in the answers there.

One of the oldest (and probably most frequently-duplicated) suggestions is to allow trusted voters or moderators to change the accepted answer at-will. The primary issue with doing this is that this waters down the meaning of Accept, while a secondary one is the lack of a reliable means to select a group of users likely to know more about the topic than an asker.

A relatively unobtrusive option would be to just add a small notice to cases where the accepted answer is outranked, noting the existence of a potentially better one nearby.

A closely-related issue involves answers that were once very useful, but in the face of change have become out of date, obsolete, or simply less than ideal. Note that this can also be a problem with answers which were simply highly-voted during the period of time when they were correct, since votes do not age away. A related discussion on the maintenance of such answers.

Well, there's this one - unpinning when the answer score falls below some score threshold. And its slightly more complicated cousin, which wishes for downvotes to be considered by themselves. The only real issue with the former is that it adds complexity to a conceptually-simple system; the issues with the latter are detailed in the answers there.

One of the oldest (and probably most frequently-duplicated) suggestions is to allow trusted voters or moderators to change the accepted answer at-will. The primary issue with doing this is that this waters down the meaning of Accept, while a secondary one is the lack of a reliable means to select a group of users likely to know more about the topic than an asker.

A relatively unobtrusive option would be to just add a small notice to cases where the accepted answer is outranked, noting the existence of a potentially better one nearby.