Meta Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for meta-discussion of the Stack Exchange family of Q&A websites. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I went to Yahoo Answers to ask a question, and it said this at the bottom:
"Asking a question costs 5 points, but you'll get back 3 points when you choose a Best Answer."
Instead of banning people for asking too many questions in rapid succession, why doesn't Stack Overflow use this system?
Wouldn't it be much more convenient, and those with very little reputation points wouldn't be able to ask very many questions.
For reference, the full Yahoo Answers point system:
Action Points
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Begin participating on Yahoo Answers One Time: 100
Ask a question -5
Choose a best answer for your question 3
Answer a question 2
Self-deleting an answer -2
Log in to Yahoo Answers Once daily: 1
Have your answer selected as the best answer 10
Receive a "thumbs-up" rating
on a best answer that you wrote
(up to 50 thumbs-up are counted) 1 per "thumbs-up"
Receive a violation -10
So new users start out with enough points to ask 20 questions, and earning more is pretty easy; simply logging in each day will earn you enough for another question in a week.
For comparison, the median number of questions per asker on Stack Overflow is 2 - 2 questions for their entire time asking. 95% of askers have asked 20 questions or less in their entire time on the site. Adopting Yahoo's system would effectively turn off all limits for the vast majority of people asking questions.
Which should give you some idea of why Yahoo uses this system and why we do not. Y! thrives on questions, any questions, about any topic imaginable. They don't have to get particularly good answers, or even be answerable - they just have to generate responses. This is what the top 5 questions on Yahoo Answers' home page page looks like for me right now:
None of those questions are particularly objective, and it is debatable whether any of them can be answered in a way that'll be useful to anyone... But they sure are motivating folks to try! 49 answers, 183 answers... Y! may not be helping anyone do their job better or creating a reference for the ages here, but you can't deny it is entertaining. And entertainment thrives on novelty; the last thing you want to do is to reject a question that might turn into a circus.
Here's Y!A's programming section:
Those are the top 5 recent questions in the area closest to Stack Overflow. And here's the top of Stack Overflow's weekly hot list:
I'm not gonna pretend that SO's most popular questions are great works of lasting value to humanity... Truth is, they also have a lot more entertainment value than they do practical use. But they're at least specific, answerable programming questions that can probably teach a few working programmers something about their craft. This was not always the case! Early on, before these rate-limits and quality-checks were added, you'd find the same sort of dreck filtering into Stack Overflow that you see now on Y!A - and that was when only a fraction of the number of questions were being asked. You can probably imagine what it would look like today if we hadn't put those limits in place...
...But you don't have to. You have Yahoo! Answers to look at. If that's the sort of site you want to be a part of, it is there waiting for you - enjoy!
The Stack Exchange reputation (and voting) system is pretty complex, and your suggestion is a very small and simple idea.
How would this idea fit in to the rest of the Stack Exchange rep/voting systems?
Also, why would this be better?
why doesn't Stack Overflow use this system?
On Stack Exchange sites we currently get to ask questions for absolutely free.
And we get 2 rep for accepting an answer.
If we ask a good well written question, we likely gain even more rep.
If we are lazy, and ask a duplicate, or a poor or off-topic question, we likely don't gain rep, and often lose some from downvotes.
This encourages better quality content.
Stack Exchange's model sounds better to me.
What if you don't have 5 (or whatever) rep to be able to ask? It could have been a great question, with great answers, now lost forever and no-one gets to read that great or even "just" helpful answer.
Having to "pay to ask" potentially hinders our being able to create a large collection of information, as many users won't have the rep to ask.
What benefits are there from needing to "pay to ask"?
It seems like a pointless exercise to me. Paying to ask a question in no way guarantees a well written or quality question, or even a good question, whereas on Stack Exchange sites we earn rep by doing good things - this promotes and encourages good content and quality posts.
Paying does not do this.
It also has the potential to push users to carry out rep earning tasks so they can ask.
Forcing people to do such things means their intentions are (possibly/sometimes) not in the interest of the site.
They just want the rep, so do a poor review, or post a poor answer, etc, just to get some rep.
This can be seen by comparing how much quality content is on Stack Exchange sites, to that of Yahoo Answers.
It would be much more convenient
Here you ask for free, and get 2 rep for accepting an answer.
Yahoo Answers you pay 5 rep up front, and get 3 back.
The net outcome is you lose rep for asking. I can't see why this could be considered a good model.
Some people do not want to or have an answer, and so with the Stack Exchange method people can ask if they want, answer if they want, etc. And they simply earn rep based on activities they are comfortable with (and what others believe the quality of their post is of course).
This is more likely to encourage good content, as users are not forced out of the professional or comfort zones.
and those with very little rep wouldn't be able to ask very many questions.
I really have no idea whatsoever why this would be a good idea.
Stack Exchange allowing everyone to post for free (with some posting limits of course) is much better, especially as we have a great community moderating system to be able to resolve any problems and poor posts.
And the automated site scripts can slow people down if they're posting too many bad questions/answers/etc.
Again, the Stack Exchange voting and thus rep systems are very complex, with many functions and parameters, of which have the potential to affect each anther.
So you cannot just "shove in" a new idea like yours.
Also, I just do not see why the Yahoo Answers model is any better at all, in fact I think it's bad for reasons as above.
