3

I know, I'm not the first to talk about this idea, but I haven't found anything useful which is less than a couple of years old...

It seems that vast majority of questions which need to be closed should be closed as duplicates and recently I'm trying to commit to finding a good duplicate when I can. However, everyone knows it is a tiresome and not rewarding task, so there should be a way to facilitate this. I started to make a list of good duplicate questions for my personal use (as of a week ago), but now I think there must be a better and more productive way than just copypasting links in a text file and adding a few comments.

So, is there maybe already a place where people are accumulating such questions collaboratively? If not, is there a nice platform to have such a database (with tagging abilities, good search, etc) where active community members could contribute such things? Can it be done within the existing SO / meta system?

Improve this question
11
  • 1
    Click a tag → "frequent" tab -- High chance those questions are the canonical
    – random
    Feb 11, 2014 at 3:30
  • @random They are canonical, sure, which isn't exactly what I'm asking about. How many pages of those am I supposed to look through to see what I'm looking for? A lot. Also, they don't really represent the majority of duplicates. Where is classical "array out of bounds" question? Where is "integer division error"? Most of those don't have any high-upvoted Q&A. Such basic questions can be closed as duplicate of many other questions, I just want to find one which is half-good and stick to it, rather than search every time.
    – sashkello
    Feb 11, 2014 at 3:46
  • Every wording of the duplicate has it's own words and special meaning. I'd suggest the deeper work with duplicates. Sorting by their duplicity, filtering off more duplicate. There is a huge amount of more or less the same questions. But simply deleting duplicates of just mark as duplicate (which equals to rubbish-mark). Maybe it'd be not a bad idea to mark the word [DUPLICATE] with some degree color (gradient as an option) and making [DUPLICATE] a clickable link. And adding a space symbol before this word _[DUPLICATE]. And finally: "the more you learn the less you know you know"
    – Xsi
    Feb 11, 2014 at 3:47
  • We could better just start to test-version of sorting [duplicate-comment]. There're lots of duplicates in comments. Because comments are short and simple it is a very good reason to start practicing on them. And people generate them just right now, and they make 2 duplicates just right now. Such feedback in realtime would be of greater help.
    – Xsi
    Feb 11, 2014 at 3:52
  • @Xsi I don't really get what you are talking about and it feels quite irrelevant to my question. I'm not suggesting to change anything in the existing system and if you think it should, post it as a separate discussion. Also it seems like feature-request which should be very well justified to go through. The current site kind of works, and any change should come with a significant reason.
    – sashkello
    Feb 11, 2014 at 3:55
  • You may be interested in Another take on canonical answers: add a "canonical" vote
    – jscs
    Feb 11, 2014 at 6:20
  • @JoshCaswell Yeah, I saw that. As I mentioned, this one is pretty old as well :)
    – sashkello
    Feb 11, 2014 at 6:21
  • 2
    Here's hoping one of these ideas sticks at some point!
    – jscs
    Feb 11, 2014 at 6:24
  • @random - I did not know about that area. It is pretty awesome! If only it were more visible...
    – Travis J
    Feb 11, 2014 at 9:17
  • Maybe this query could be adapted as a quick fix? data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/162750/…
    – George Duckett
    Feb 11, 2014 at 9:17
  • @GeorgeDuckett That's awesome and quite helpful, it certainly is another nice tool to search for good questions!
    – sashkello
    Feb 11, 2014 at 10:45

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

The tag wiki is a good place to list the common questions that are asked about a tag.

Improve this answer
2
  • The exposure is quite poor, though. The wiki is not searchable, so people only hit it when they know about the feature.
    – nhahtdh
    Feb 11, 2014 at 9:31
  • @nhahtdh That's not a huge problem, at least it would be there, even if not everyone immediately know it...
    – sashkello
    Feb 11, 2014 at 21:42

You must log in to answer this question.

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