-12

I have just seen someone who answered a question, closed it just afterward and got +10/+15 of rep (at the moment).

What is the problem?

No problem with the fact of being in the position of judge and party?

It prevents others to make better answers. When a question is closed, no more answer can be posted. I am clearly talking about a behavior that can be seen as unfair, even if the word is quiet strong.

The conflict of interest is blatant: you answer and then you close. To me, this behavior is somehow equivalent to reopening a question, answering it, and reclosing it.


Don't you think that it would make sense to prevent "answerers" to be able to close questions to which they have answered? Or at least, neutralize the reputation they have earned?

  • I don't understand what's the problem of this. – Ver Nick Jan 8 at 10:42
  • 5
    I think the obvious exceptions might be duplicates which can be hard to find and you might agree with a proposed dupe later, and also clear migration candidates. But I do agree I don't go much on people who answer a question then vote it as off-topic / too broad / unclear etc. – PeterJ Jan 8 at 11:21
  • 1
    Disallowing answerers from closing would not be appropriate, for reasons of moderation, but I'm in full support of the other proposal (neutralize the rep) for it being less related to moderation. – iBug Jan 8 at 11:24
  • 2
    Other users who submit an answer are not competitors with one another. The fact you think it’s a competition is disturbing. – Ramhound Jan 8 at 11:26
  • @Ramhound I may be wrong, but having 100k of rep means nothing if everyone has. – keepAlive Jan 8 at 12:46
  • @Kanak - I could care less about reputation. Having a large amount of reputation does not make it easier to answer questions. Reputation is not required to answer questions. You should absolutely not view submitting an answer as a competition. – Ramhound Jan 8 at 12:58
1

An alternative to answering then closing might be to close without answering.

As long as the answer does provide an answer to the question, and that the closing is reasonable, then I think the asker and future visitors would prefer that the answer is posted.

Sometimes a potential answerer of a question might also be well placed to determine whether a close vote is warranted.

2

That prevents more benevolent behavior than it discourages actual malice. As Glorfindel pointed out, it can sometimes be very helpful to write an answer explaining how a duplicate actually pertains to the circumstances given in the question prior to closing it.

That shows the person asking that the community did, in fact, read and understand their question prior to placing it on-hold. Or, at least, it conveys how the community understood the question in the event that the closure needs to be contested.

While it is pretty crummy to swoop in and answer a question then vote to close it as off-topic, I think it's better to leave problematic instances of this as an edge case for moderators to deal with at their discretion than to introduce additional complexity into how the closing system works. As it stands, we'd want to keep the loophole open for duplicates, and if you can start to envision the series of checks involved, you can see how that code would start to smell kind of musty.

If you see chronic or problematic instances of someone actively trying to game the system using this or any other means, just flag the post for mod attention, select "other" and explain what's going on.

This, as suggested, isn't something we can implement because it's not really solving the problem which is already a pretty far edge case to begin with, and it actively prevents more frequent benign use, making it more like a feature than a loophole.

And like I said, if you see someone just copy / pasting answers from a duplicate without doing anything to explain how they pertain to the OP's circumstances, flag that sort of thing right away. But more often than not, people use it responsibly, especially here on meta.

1

I don't think this is a good idea:

  • One could write an answer in all honesty, only to realize later that the question is actually a duplicate of a question asked before. Maybe the original question has even better answers than the current question; it would not be helpful to future visitors to not automatically link to that duplicate.
  • What happens fairly often on Meta Stack Exchange is that somebody is asking a question to which the answer can be found by carefully reading the corresponding . Still, it's often helpful to write an answer that is specific to the question at hand, e.g. by quoting the relevant passages. This often becomes too long for a mere comment.

You must log in to answer this question.

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