5 ms·
There's one easy fix for this, and several other problems with SO: Don't close duplicate questions. Just cross-reference them. Reasons: - Gets rid of the
by bunderbunder 12y ago
There's one easy fix for this, and several other problems with SO: Don't close duplicate questions. Just cross-reference them.
Reasons:
- Gets rid of the "This was closed because of trigger-happy
moderators failing to distinguish between 'similar' and
'identical'" problem by making that situation impossible.
- Improves answer discovery for users: If Google gets you
to almost, but not quite, the right question,
cross-referencing gets you the rest of the way.
- Improves answer discovery for users: Maybe the best answer
today isn't the same as the best answer 5 years ago.
- Improves gamification: Rewards are the lifeblood of
a site like Stack Overflow. A way of dealing with
duplicate questions that rewards users for
cross-referencing them is infinitely more in line with
SE's basic idea than one that punishes them with
public shaming.
- Reduces opportunity for petty bureaucrats to take root.
- Represents a more thoughtful, measured way of thinking
about software engineering. Many questions really can
have more than one correct answer, or the correct answer
can depend on subtle details. Which answer gets the
green check mark may have as much to do with the situation
of the asker than the quality of the answer.
- xorcist 12y agoAbsolutely right. And this is also the way every other bug tracker on the planet works. (Yes, I think SO looks like a bug tracker used as a discussion forum. They're certainly very close, including hostile project owners, WONTFIX's, etc.)
- mark-r 12y agoInteresting observation. Recall that Joel Spolsky got his start with FogBugz, a bug tracker. Think that might have informed the design?
- robertwharvey 12y agoThat's exactly what closing duplicates does: cross references it to the original. If someone wants to post new information, they can do it on the original.
- dionidium 12y agoYes, they can. But they won't. (For various reasons, but primarily because it won't get any attention. Nobody likes yelling into the void.) An alternative to shaming is that you could just accept this great new content that a volunteer is giving you.
- shagie 12y agoThere is a badge for exactly that - Necromancer ( http://stackoverflow.com/help/badges/17/necromancer http://stackoverflow.com/help/badges/17/necromancer ): Answered a question more than 60 days later with score of 5 or more. Whenever a question gets a new post it gets bumped up to the top of the activity again - the same amount of possible attention as when an hour old question gets a new answer too.
- dionidium 12y agoYes. I shouldn't have said nobody. I actually like answering old questions, for example. I've earned that badge 10 times :) What it really comes down to, though, is that when somebody asks a new question, I want to answer their new question, with all of its subtleties, in response to its particular phrasing, in its context.
- mark-r 12y agoIt depends on the question. If it previously didn't have an answer or only had one, it goes to the top. If it had 5 OK answers and you add a 6th really awesome one, the ranking doesn't change much - expect it to be totally ignored.
- shagie 12y agoThat is not always the case. Consider http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/263542/ http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/263542/ in which an answer was posted three years after the question was asked and two years since the last visible answer was posted ( http://programmers.stackexchange.com/posts/65281/timeline http://programmers.stackexchange.com/posts/65281/timeline ) and is now the second highest answer in the question. That doesn't sound like 'totally ignored'.