Return to Question

"Trust me then, there's a duplicate out there somewhere, at least I'm effing looking for one"

[...] commented a recent Stack Overflow user on a question I asked and then answered (as a tandem ask-then-answer question).

Clearly the priority for this person was to find a duplicate and close the question rather than allow the answer I'd posted to stand or allow others to answer or make suggestions.

Why did the comment begin with

"Trust me then [...]"

Because the first "duplicate question" that the user had proposed had elicited the following (quite accurate) response from another user:

"That has nothing to do with what is being asked here"

Then - surprise, surprise - it turned out that the subsequently nominated "duplicate question", (which was accepted), turned out, on not-particularly-detailed reading not to be a duplicate at all.

It certainly involved some of the same concepts (javascript events, hovers and mouseovers) but it was a different question looking explicitly for a different answer.

The accepted answer of the "duplicate" would not have answered the question I posted, nor would it have really made sense in the context of the question I posted.

I know people will do their own thing and Stack Overflow is a platform for everyone to use as they see fit but these sort of false positive "duplicates" are frustrating.

It strikes me that some Stack Overflow members would rather hunt for duplicates than either:

1. Try to answer the question; or
2. Move on and find a question they can answer

Even if hunting for duplicates is a greater priority for a given user, perhaps they should at least make the effort on their chosen quest to find an answer which actually is a duplicate of the question they're trying to close?

What can we all do to help make answering questions (and reading questions properly) a higher priority than trying to find duplicates (and sometimes false positive duplicates)?

References:

The tandem question-answer I posted:

• Javascript has methods to simulate user interactions like .click(), .focus(), .blur(). But no .hover(). Can JS simulate a hover / mouseover?

The proposed and accepted duplicate:

• How to simulate a mouseover in pure JavaScript that activates the CSS ":hover"?

"Trust me then, there's a duplicate out there somewhere, at least I'm effing looking for one"

[...] commented a recent Stack Overflow user on a question I asked and then answered (as a tandem ask-then-answer question).

Clearly the priority for this person was to find a duplicate and close the question rather than allow the answer I'd posted to stand or allow others to answer or make suggestions.

Why did the comment begin with

"Trust me then [...]"

Because the first "duplicate question" that the user had proposed had elicited the following (quite accurate) response from another user:

"That has nothing to do with what is being asked here"

Then - surprise, surprise - it turned out that the subsequently nominated "duplicate question", (which was accepted), turned out, on not-particularly-detailed reading not to be a duplicate at all.

It certainly involved some of the same concepts (javascript events, hovers and mouseovers) but it was a different question looking explicitly for a different answer.

The accepted answer of the "duplicate" would not have answered the question I posted, nor would it have really made sense in the context of the question I posted.

I know people will do their own thing and Stack Overflow is a platform for everyone to use as they see fit but these sort of false positive "duplicates" are frustrating.

It strikes me that some Stack Overflow members would rather hunt for duplicates than either:

1. Try to answer the question; or
2. Move on and find a question they can answer

Even if hunting for duplicates is a greater priority for a given user, perhaps they should at least make the effort on their chosen quest to find an answer which actually is a duplicate of the question they're trying to close? (This is the most frustrating aspect of all. It's one thing to see one's question closed; it's quite another to see it closed on a false premise.)

Question: What can we all do to help make answering questions (and reading questions properly) a higher priority than trying to find duplicates (and sometimes false positive duplicates)?

References:

The tandem question-answer I posted:

• Javascript has methods to simulate user interactions like .click(), .focus(), .blur(). But no .hover(). Can JS simulate a hover / mouseover?

The proposed and accepted duplicate:

• How to simulate a mouseover in pure JavaScript that activates the CSS ":hover"?

"Trust me then, there's a duplicate out there somewhere, at least I'm effing looking for one"

[...] commented a recent Stack Overflow user on a question I asked and then answered (as a tandem ask-then-answer question).

Clearly the priority for this person was to find a duplicate and close the question rather than allow the answer I'd posted to stand or allow others to answer or make suggestions.

Why did the comment begin with

"Trust me then [...]"

Because the first "duplicate question" that the user had proposed had elicited the following (quite accurate) response from another user:

"That has nothing to do with what is being asked here"

Then - surprise, surprise - it turned out that another "duplicate question", which was subsequently nominated and accepted, turned out, on not-particularly-close reading not to be a duplicate at all.

It certainly involved some of the same concepts (javascript events, hovers and mouseovers) but it was a different question looking explicitly for a different answer.

The accepted answer of the "duplicate" would not have answered the question I posted, nor would it have really made sense in the context of the question I posted.

I know people will do their own thing and Stack Overflow is a platform for everyone to use as they see fit but these sort of false positive "duplicates" are frustrating.

It strikes me that some Stack Overflow members would rather hunt for duplicates than either:

1. Try to answer the question; or
2. Move on and find a question they can answer

Even if hunting for duplicates is a greater priority for a given user, perhaps they should at least make the effort on their chosen quest to find an answer which actually is a duplicate of the question they're trying to close?

What can we all do to help make answering questions (and reading questions properly) a higher priority than trying to find duplicates (and sometimes false positive duplicates)?

References:

The tandem question-answer I posted:

• Javascript has methods to simulate user interactions like .click(), .focus(), .blur(). But no .hover(). Can JS simulate a hover / mouseover?

The proposed and accepted duplicate:

• How to simulate a mouseover in pure JavaScript that activates the CSS ":hover"?

"Trust me then, there's a duplicate out there somewhere, at least I'm effing looking for one"

[...] commented a recent Stack Overflow user on a question I asked and then answered (as a tandem ask-then-answer question).

Clearly the priority for this person was to find a duplicate and close the question rather than allow the answer I'd posted to stand or allow others to answer or make suggestions.

Why did the comment begin with

"Trust me then [...]"

Because the first "duplicate question" that the user had proposed had elicited the following (quite accurate) response from another user:

"That has nothing to do with what is being asked here"

Then - surprise, surprise - it turned out that the subsequently nominated "duplicate question", (which was accepted), turned out, on not-particularly-detailed reading not to be a duplicate at all.

It certainly involved some of the same concepts (javascript events, hovers and mouseovers) but it was a different question looking explicitly for a different answer.

The accepted answer of the "duplicate" would not have answered the question I posted, nor would it have really made sense in the context of the question I posted.

I know people will do their own thing and Stack Overflow is a platform for everyone to use as they see fit but these sort of false positive "duplicates" are frustrating.

It strikes me that some Stack Overflow members would rather hunt for duplicates than either:

1. Try to answer the question; or
2. Move on and find a question they can answer

Even if hunting for duplicates is a greater priority for a given user, perhaps they should at least make the effort on their chosen quest to find an answer which actually is a duplicate of the question they're trying to close?

What can we all do to help make answering questions (and reading questions properly) a higher priority than trying to find duplicates (and sometimes false positive duplicates)?

References:

The tandem question-answer I posted:

• Javascript has methods to simulate user interactions like .click(), .focus(), .blur(). But no .hover(). Can JS simulate a hover / mouseover?

The proposed and accepted duplicate:

• How to simulate a mouseover in pure JavaScript that activates the CSS ":hover"?

"Trust me then, there's a duplicate out there somewhere, at least I'm effing looking for one"

[...] commented a recent Stack Overflow user on a question I asked and then answered (as a tandem ask-then-answer question).

Clearly the priority for this person was to find a duplicate and close the question rather than allow the answer I'd posted to stand or allow others to answer or make suggestions.

Why did the comment begin with

"Trust me then [...]"

Because the first "duplicate question" that the user had proposed had elicited the following (quite accurate) response from another user:

"That has nothing to do with what is being asked here"

Then - surprise, surprise - it turned out that another "duplicate question", which was subsequently nominated and accepted, turned out, on not-particularly-close reading not to be a duplicate at all.

It certainly involved some of the same concepts (javascript events, hovers and mouseovers) but it was a different question looking explicitly for a different answer.

The accepted answer of the "duplicate" would not have answered the question I posted, nor would it have really made sense in the context of the question I posted.

I know people will do their own thing and Stack Overflow is a platform for everyone to use as they see fit but these sort of false positive "duplicates" are frustrating.

It strikes me that some Stack Overflow would rather hunt for duplicates than either:

1. Try to answer the question; or
2. Move on and find a question they can answer

Even if hunting for duplicates is a greater priority for a given user, perhaps they should at least make the effort on their chosen quest to find an answer which actually is a duplicate of the question they're trying to close?

What can we all do to help make answering questions (and reading questions properly) a higher priority than trying to find duplicates (and sometimes false positive duplicates)?

References:

The tandem question-answer I posted:

• Javascript has methods to simulate user interactions like .click(), .focus(), .blur(). But no .hover(). Can JS simulate a hover / mouseover?

The proposed and accepted duplicate:

• How to simulate a mouseover in pure JavaScript that activates the CSS ":hover"?

"Trust me then, there's a duplicate out there somewhere, at least I'm effing looking for one"

[...] commented a recent Stack Overflow user on a question I asked and then answered (as a tandem ask-then-answer question).

Clearly the priority for this person was to find a duplicate and close the question rather than allow the answer I'd posted to stand or allow others to answer or make suggestions.

Why did the comment begin with

"Trust me then [...]"

Because the first "duplicate question" that the user had proposed had elicited the following (quite accurate) response from another user:

"That has nothing to do with what is being asked here"

Then - surprise, surprise - it turned out that another "duplicate question", which was subsequently nominated and accepted, turned out, on not-particularly-close reading not to be a duplicate at all.

It certainly involved some of the same concepts (javascript events, hovers and mouseovers) but it was a different question looking explicitly for a different answer.

The accepted answer of the "duplicate" would not have answered the question I posted, nor would it have really made sense in the context of the question I posted.

I know people will do their own thing and Stack Overflow is a platform for everyone to use as they see fit but these sort of false positive "duplicates" are frustrating.

It strikes me that some Stack Overflow members would rather hunt for duplicates than either:

1. Try to answer the question; or
2. Move on and find a question they can answer

Even if hunting for duplicates is a greater priority for a given user, perhaps they should at least make the effort on their chosen quest to find an answer which actually is a duplicate of the question they're trying to close?

What can we all do to help make answering questions (and reading questions properly) a higher priority than trying to find duplicates (and sometimes false positive duplicates)?

References:

The tandem question-answer I posted:

• Javascript has methods to simulate user interactions like .click(), .focus(), .blur(). But no .hover(). Can JS simulate a hover / mouseover?

The proposed and accepted duplicate:

• How to simulate a mouseover in pure JavaScript that activates the CSS ":hover"?