Should the following functionality be altered?

If you post a question and then delete it yourself, you can wait 2 days and undelete it and then immediately post a bounty. IMO it should require 2 days of the question existing (visible) on the site for it to be properly allowed to support a bounty.

If this isn't required then IMO then a bounty shouldn't have a time required to be posted.

In addition I have asked the same question twice that received downvotes without a bounty, but it doesn't with a bounty.

If someone wants a good, fast answer as quickly as possible then posting a bounty immediately makes sense to me. So it is directly to the poster's benefit.


The difference between deleting a post for two days and then posting a bounty or posting a bounty immediately after creating the post is two days. Your question won't be answered earlier, in fact, it is more likely to be answered later.

Further, the delay is meant in favour of the asker as far as I know: at least on smaller sites, questions that are two days old are still visible on the first or second page or will be seen by people that subscribed to that tag and maybe be answered. If you want to work around using this, then do so. But I don't think this is done in practice.

Also note that self-deleted posts count towards question ban, even if undeleted later.

  • If someone wants a good fast answer as quick as possible then posting a bounty immediately makes sense to me. So it isn't directly to the posters benefit. – William Sep 10 '15 at 16:10
  • @LiamWilliam But at least on the sites I'm familiar with (mainly Mathematics) already over 90% of the questions are either answered or bad enough to garner at least a few close votes. – wythagoras Sep 10 '15 at 16:13
  • In addition I have asked the same question twice that receives downvotes with out a bounty but it doesn't with a bounty. – William Sep 10 '15 at 16:16
  • 4
    Since you mention closing: a bounty makes a question immune to closing. Normally this is not a problem, because 2 days waiting period is enough to close bad stuff. But with the loophole described above, the waiting requirement is circumvented. – user259867 Sep 10 '15 at 16:21
  • @NormalHuman If it is really bad than it can still be flagged for a moderator to close. – wythagoras Sep 10 '15 at 16:22
  • 3
    Yes, but "bad enough to be closed" and "bad enough so that one can convince a moderator to close" are two different categories. – user259867 Sep 10 '15 at 16:51
  • 1
    @NormalHuman Not really, especially in a case where they clearly abused the system to bypass users' abilities to close the question. It's a pretty mindless operation to refund the bounty and immediately close the question, and the user would probably get a warning too. But I'm not really aware of anyone who's ever done this, because it's kind of a pointless thing to do just to avoid your question getting closed for a little longer while it waits for a moderator, and you're wasting two whole days where you could be getting an answer. – animuson Sep 10 '15 at 20:43

You must log in to answer this question.

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