-8

I don't understand why this gets downvoted for merely disliking the suggestion. The downvote button says: "The question does not show any research effort, it is unclear or not useful." It doesn't say: "downvote if you dislike the idea." This is stupid, as it stymies ideas to be put up for discussion, when those who do so must fear to be punished for it if the idea may not be the mainstream view ... The consequence is a self-reinforcing echo chamber in which anything not-aligned is silenced. Personally I won't share any ideas here anymore.


I generally agree that it makes sense to limit the bounty period to 7 days so that the active bounty question section (i.e. "bountied tab") does not get overcrowded. But merely technically speaking, the bounty could still be awarded after the question has been removed from the "bountied tab". I would not see any downside in that. What harm would this do to anybody ?

Yet the rules don't allow a later upgrade:

According to https://superuser.com/help/bounty and my own experience, the full bounty is auto-awarded automatically only if ...

If the bounty was started by the question owner, and the question owner accepts an answer posted during the bounty period, and the bounty expires without an explicit award then we assume the bounty owner liked the answer they accepted and award it the full bounty amount at the time of bounty expiration.
source: https://superuser.com/help/bounty

Case in point: I just missed the 7 day bounty period (lots of things going on in my life) and accepted an answer afterwards, which had already been auto-awarded half the bounty, but this did not double the bounty. The user still got only half the bounty awarded. So my acceptance of the answer did not have an effect on the bounty.

I don't understand what difference it makes if the answer is accepted after 5 days or 9 days ...

Maybe there is a good reason for this rule. But if there is none, I suggest there should still be a way to award the full bounty at any time. Either one of these two implementations would be fine:

  • Automatically awarding the full bounty by the system whenever the above-cited criteria are met (even after the 7 day period ended).

  • OR: When the user accepts an answer beyond the 7 days, the grayed out bounty-award button becomes active again, so that the user can manually award the bounty (ONLY to the auto-awarded answer in case it is seen as problematic to switch the bounty as mentioned in the first comment below).


This is not a duplicate of A grace period of one day to award the bounty after expiration (without remaining featured, of course) as (one of my) suggestions is an open-ended possibility to upgrade the auto-awarded bounty to a full bounty (while keeping the 7 days limit for the active bounty tab) ... not a 1-day grace period, which BTW has been implemented already! So this other question, which has been asked more than 13 years ago, is long obsolete.

13
  • 1
    If half the bounty has been awarded, are you suggesting that one could take that away in order to award the full bounty to someone else. That's going to upset the recipient of that half bounty. They are likely already disappointed that you couldn't be bothered to manually award your bounty to the answer they spent so much time and now you're proposing to be given the ability to rub further salt into that wound. If you've gone to the trouble of raising a bounty you could at least make the effort to award it properly at the time, it's not like it's going to take days of your time to do that. Feb 15 at 20:34
  • @RobertLongson : I agree. This is a very good point, you raise a legitimate problem that would have to be dealt with somehow. Yet I feel my question is also legitimate at the same time. I disagree with the last part of your comment though. I am happy if your life is manageable to you. But when someone has lots on their plate, sometimes they can't follow and keep track of EVERYTHING going on. Personally I am struggling hard with suicidal thoughts. So you can understand that this might seem like an afterthought in the grand scheme of things ...
    – summerrain
    Feb 15 at 20:41
  • 2
    Perhaps you should prioritise your mental health and to do so, stop using these sites (and likely many others) altogether then. Feb 15 at 20:43
  • 1
    Simply put, it's just technical matter: when bounty is over, it's over. What you suggest means fundamental change of the whole bounty system, and honestly I don't think such thing is needed. As Robert also mentioned in a way, if one is not sure they can be available to grant the bounty, better not start it at all. Feb 15 at 20:49
  • @RobertLongson: Well there is no harm for me here, it's not a bad place. It calms me, so ... but thanks for the advice. Having thought about the problem you raised, I now think it wouldn't actually be a problem IF only the auto-awarded answer can be upgraded to a full bounty.
    – summerrain
    Feb 15 at 20:50
  • Jeff Atwood's answer to A grace period of one day to award the bounty after expiration (without remaining featured, of course) explains why this isn't a good idea. By the way, you do get a 24-hour period after a bounty ends to award it. Feb 15 at 20:50
  • @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog : One of my suggestions was an open-ended possibility to upgrade the auto-awarded bounty to a full bounty (while keeping the 7 days limit for the active bounty tab).
    – summerrain
    Feb 15 at 20:52
  • @ShadowWizardLoveZelda : I don't think this would be such a big change.
    – summerrain
    Feb 15 at 20:54
  • @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog : please remove the close/duplicate vote. This makes no sense whatsoever. The alleged duplicated question #68050 you cite was asked more than 13 years ago and has been implemented years ago and therefore is obsolete. I have updated the OP to reflect that. When you read my question carefully, you'll see that it deals with the status quo now ... not the status quo from 13 years ago.
    – summerrain
    Feb 15 at 21:43
  • 1
    Even after 13 years, the rationale is still the same - why this feature doesn't exist is because it's up to the bounty starter to be fully aware of the dates of the bounty. Also, on meta sites, it's allowed to close questions as duplicates if the answer to a target addresses a question, even if the questions are not the same. Feb 15 at 22:14
  • 1
    @Sonic no, this does not fit here as duplicate, for the simple fact it's already marked as completed and does not, by any means, do as this request here is asking. If it wouldn't have status completed, or declined, then perhaps it could fit, as the implementation might have been different. Feb 18 at 9:45
  • @ShadowWizardLoveZelda Again, while the questions here and there are different, it is allowed to close questions as duplicates if an answer to the proposed target answers the question - the top part of the accepted answer there (above the horizontal line) addresses why this is not a good idea. Also, per the policy link above, it's also allowed to close requests that go against one or more SE ideals/principles as duplicates of questions that explain the principle at hand - see the final paragraph of Journeyman Geek's answer here; it's the same as the part I pointed to earlier. Feb 18 at 10:02
  • 1
    Putting those two policies together (that question's answer explains the principle which this feature request goes against, even though the request in the question there is different), this question should be closed as a duplicate. Feb 18 at 10:05

1 Answer 1

3

You're spending reputation for attention, and the 'half' bounty is meant to reward the best answer if none of the answers suited your needs.

And you know what? No one ought to be mad at you if you missed your bounty in the week (and a day's grace) you have, because - well from the comments you had other concerns and this is fine.

Getting a bounty is nice and I understand the desire not to 'waste' the reputation. You can also independently give a bounty to an answer that's not the one you picked (maybe a good one that's underappreciated), answers to someone else's question and so on.

You can also change the accepted answer, so your proposal means you can select the automatically awarded half bounty answer and change it back - which essentially turns your proposed solution into "you can upgrade any automatic award to full bounties" which... means there's an implicit pressure to do so, which might not be desirable.

While the question people have referred you to is 13 years old, the circumstances haven't changed all that much, and I'd still consider it relevant after all this time.

1
  • You make valid points but they don't really seem to answer my question: What harm would this* do to anybody ? (*this = later upgrade from half-bounty to full-bounty)
    – summerrain
    Feb 23 at 19:31

You must log in to answer this question.

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