The point should be about the answering of questions not the likelyhood for an easy question for rep.

2 Answers 2


If I understand your question.... The blog post announcing the feature explains why it was added. The time spent by answerers is valuable, and providing statistics and other ways to determine the OP's level of involvement and investment in a question is a way to help user's determine if it is worth their time to figure out and post an answer to a problem. That's not to say people with low percentages won't get answers, but they have contributed less to the system, and therefore are less "deserving" of quality answers, in relative terms. This does not mean they shouldn't or won't get answers, but I have no issue with the system making it easier to determine which user's might be more involved and likely to appreciate and/or help improve the answers to their questions. As with all information, the acceptance percentage is only a piece of data, not the whole picture, but I believe it is a useful starting point.


That's not to say new askers and/or people will low percentages won't get answers, but they are contributing less to the system, and therefore are less "deserving" of quality answers.

I think this exactly illustrates at least part of the problem I brought up and is similar in nature to the problems/concerns brought up by TheTXI.

Why is a new asker less deserving of quality answers just because they have a low accept rate?

  • Your response indicates that you do feel they are "less deserving". As a new user, they are implicitly contributing less to SO simply because they are new. That doesn't mean they are less deserving of quality answers. The information isn't clean as it is simply a percentage rating that does clearly indicate that the percentage is based on 4 questions or 400 questions, and therefor you aren't actually able to make an informed choice. Commented Aug 24, 2009 at 16:44

You must log in to answer this question.

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