Meta is a discussion site and accepting an answer on many questions makes no sense. Since this statistic is now reported, it may be taken as a measure of the level of participation. For a discussion site, this stat makes much less sense, especially as a measure of participation. I suggest that it not be calculated or reported for meta.
I had a look through my posts on here earlier -- most of those that haven't had an answer accepted are for things where there isn't a solution yet, or none of the answers (suggestions, even) match the actually implemented solution.
I say go ahead and report it, but understand the nature of the site when you are looking at it.
It makes sense sometimes, on support questions especially.
Since questions on meta require special tags, perhaps questions tagged with things like
feature-request could be removed from the count.
(I don't know why I bother answering this, there is only a one in 3 chance you will accept this :p)
I think it does make sense.
- Jeff can always select a different accepted answer
- You can select the "answer" you found most helpful, or that most comprehensively addressed your query.
There is no question that this feature increases participation, I cleaned up all my questions on Meta and SO recently, accepting feature requests I made on meta etc. If Jeff sees a feature request that is accepted that he is going to decline, he now is kind of forced to adding a reason and marking it as accepted.
I just had someone say they would not have answered by question on Meta if they had saw my accept rate first. So this is a real problem, as most questions on meta does not have one best answer.
Maybe only include questions tagged “support-request” when working out the “accept rate”
Please don't. It's the only site I have a 100% accept rate.
A lot of SO functionality wasn't designed for Meta.SO but I would like to see as much of the functionality maintained as possible even where it might not be needed... for a few reasons:
- Meta.SO is a good place to try out functionality you might not want to try on a "professional" site.
- Stack Exchange is coming up and there is a lot to be learned seeing how SO features hold up under a site for which is was not specifically design (like meta.SO).
- I would like to see how the SO engine handles more traditional discussion needs of meta.SO.
- It would be useful to see to see how different features "work" in different types of community environments. The group dynamics here are certainly different than that of SO and the other sites.
Meta.SO is a bit experimental. I'm sure the SO team stands to learn a lot by maintaining meta.SO as a close macrocosm of the Stack Overflow proper.