3 ms·

I was thinking about that, and here is my idea of the workflow. When someone posts a question, multiple people can answer, but the question asker only sees the

I was thinking about that, and here is my idea of the workflow. When someone posts a question, multiple people can answer, but the question asker only sees the first answer received. He can either choose to accept or reject that answer. If he rejects that answer, he can move on to the second answer and then accept/reject accordingly. Because if it is like a forum where you see the entire thread, you might run into a problem where you choose between the answers.

hardwaresofton 13y ago
So yeah, here was my problem with that: How does the person know what's a good answer and a bad one? If they see the answer, then people figure that out and only go for speed, and possibly produce bad answers, which COULD sound like good answers to the person who's asking the question.
- palidanx 13y ago
  So here is like a hypothetical example: + Let's say I have a problem with a regex which just isn't working 1) I post the question to help solve and fix this regex 2) I receive answer 1. I test it, and it doesn't work, so I reject it 3) I receive answer 2. I test it, and it does work. I accept the answer as correct, and they get paid accordingly. My view is when the question is asked, nobody can see the answers except for the asker until the entire thread is marked complete. People can choose to answer a question based on reputation of the question asker (how many they reject), and they can review their question history to see if the person is doing the right thing.
  - hardwaresofton 13y ago
    Ah, that actually makes a bit of sense -- but what about quality of solution? like if they see a second answer and if they decide the first answer was better? This model actually seems pretty viable, my idea was actually related to real-time translation apps, so it's a little harder (for the user) to establish which is better or not, but if it's a program, then they can definitely check if it works (at least) right away (and probably with some good google searches or even an explanation, find out what the person did that was different/special/good)

hardwaresofton 13y ago

So yeah, here was my problem with that: How does the person know what's a good answer and a bad one? If they see the answer, then people figure that out and only go for speed, and possibly produce bad answers, which COULD sound like good answers to the person who's asking the question.

palidanx 13y ago
So here is like a hypothetical example: + Let's say I have a problem with a regex which just isn't working 1) I post the question to help solve and fix this regex 2) I receive answer 1. I test it, and it doesn't work, so I reject it 3) I receive answer 2. I test it, and it does work. I accept the answer as correct, and they get paid accordingly. My view is when the question is asked, nobody can see the answers except for the asker until the entire thread is marked complete. People can choose to answer a question based on reputation of the question asker (how many they reject), and they can review their question history to see if the person is doing the right thing.
- hardwaresofton 13y ago
  Ah, that actually makes a bit of sense -- but what about quality of solution? like if they see a second answer and if they decide the first answer was better? This model actually seems pretty viable, my idea was actually related to real-time translation apps, so it's a little harder (for the user) to establish which is better or not, but if it's a program, then they can definitely check if it works (at least) right away (and probably with some good google searches or even an explanation, find out what the person did that was different/special/good)