I think this question's revisions and timeline should be reviewed.

The timeline I see as a problem is:

  1. Question asked
  2. Answer added
  3. Bounty added to the question
  4. Answer edited by the same user who created it
  5. Answer accepted
  6. Bounty ends

NO bounty is awarded in this case.

I think the edit is clearly a way of adding the solution to the question without creating two answers from the same user. So it is in reality a new questio nthat happens after the bounty has started.

From the help center:

If the bounty was started by the question owner, and the question owner accepts an answer during the bounty period, and the bounty expires without an explicit award – we assume the bounty owner liked the answer they accepted and award it the full bounty amount at the time of bounty expiration.

So why an exception for answer that are created before but still accepted after the bounty has started?

  • 2
    You want to auto award 100% of the bounty, and the only trigger should be the edit? That's a big no from me. You'll now open up an automatic award for any trivial edit to an answer posted before the bounty was open. Now if you want to make "accepting the answer" the trigger during the bounty (with or without the edit), that may be a better trigger. – psubsee2003 Feb 18 '14 at 14:36
  • 1
    No the trigger would be that the user accepted the answer after opening the bounty and after the edit – Maurizio In denmark Feb 18 '14 at 14:37
  • @psubsee2003 It also requires the answer to be accepted after the bounty has been created. – Richard Tingle Feb 18 '14 at 14:37
  • @RichardTingle I know, I had this discussion on his other post.... but he doesn't make enough of a point about accepting the answer to be the trigger. I personally think the edit is irrelevant. If it was accepted during the bounty, then he should get the bounty – psubsee2003 Feb 18 '14 at 14:38
  • Your last sentence, So why an exception for answer that are created before but still accepted after the bounty has started? is the key one here for me. I'm interested in understanding this design decision as it doesn't seem to make sense given the paragraph you quoted. – psubsee2003 Feb 18 '14 at 14:47
  • You are right. I thought that acceptance during the bounty was enough. But is not, so I agree that it should be. But being that such an abvious and common case I thought the exception was there for a reason. I would gladily change it or add a new one if a question like that does not exist alreayd – Maurizio In denmark Feb 18 '14 at 14:53
  • possible duplicate of Bounty not awarded automatically — bug? – Martijn Pieters Feb 18 '14 at 15:04
  • this is marked as a feature-request guys. it is not a bug. it is a different thing. two different tags. how can it be duopplicate? – Maurizio In denmark Feb 18 '14 at 15:08
  • @MaurizioIndenmark: Because the line between bug and feature is sometimes a very fine one. The other report describes the exact same problem. Whether it is a bug in the system or a missing feature is a question of labelling, nothing more. – Martijn Pieters Feb 18 '14 at 15:10
  • @MartijnPieters Well in my field of work if there is a manual or requirement that says: "The answer must have been given after the bounty was started", that is is not a bug because it works as written. Therefore a change-request – Maurizio In denmark Feb 18 '14 at 15:14
  • @MaurizioIndenmark: Again, that's a matter of perspective. See the other report; there is evidence that it is a bug as Jeff Atwood stated a clear intention elsewhere. – Martijn Pieters Feb 18 '14 at 15:15
  • and the feature-request tag is actually also an ambiguous one because contains the description of both features and change requests – Maurizio In denmark Feb 18 '14 at 15:15
  • @MartijnPieters Yes I see now that the conversation went in the same direction with Jeff Atwood – Maurizio In denmark Feb 18 '14 at 15:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .