Thoughts on "Accepted Answer"
-
I kinda like the MSDN forum model. You have a post (or multiple posts) that can be marked as Answer. I think you should do the same. Multiple posts should be markable as "Accepted Answer" and only the OP should be able to do that. And remove the 1,2,3,4,5 based voting system and just implement a "Post was useful" button. Internally this can just add a 5-vote (1-4 votes are disallowed for Quick answers). This way you won't have to make too many coding changes. An "Accepted Answer" may nor may not have "Useful/5" votes.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com linkI agree with Nish on this subject. :thumbsup:
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Bad Astronomy |VCF|wxWidgets|WTL -
For Quick Answers we've implemented an 'Accept Answer' feature. Perhaps some of you aren't aware of this and if so that's part of the problem. Let me briefly explain what it's all about. After a member posts a question and receives at least one answer he/she has the ability to click 'Accept Answer' on any of the answers. Our thought is that this would be useful for answer seekers who will be able to more easily identify the best answer(s). It may be the case that the author of the question is best able to judge what is the best answer for his/her question. But I'd have to admit that this is also often not the case, in practice. Accepted Answers as its been implemented and how it's being used just isn't working out well at the moment. Here are my main concerns: 1) Does provide value to the site? 2) If not, should we simply remove this feature and just leverage the best voted/rated answers by the community? Maybe this is sufficient or even more accurate? 3) Can we salvage the feature but improve it somehow? 4) Other thoughts?
I don't consider it very useful, but I don't mind the original poster having a means to explicitly provide his feedback. The OP can use it to indicate he considers the case closed; however the answer he liked may be incorrect, not as general as his question was formulated, or not optimal in some way. So it won't influence my reading of questions or answers, nor me adding an answer or comment. If you want to attribute a more permanent value to the questions and answers, then the appreciation of the original poster is almost irrelevant. BTW: I do not agree with a simpler voting scheme. There are no good answers, and no bad answers. There are wrong answers, incomplete answers, off-topic answers, partially good answers, etc. Averaging a number of 1-to-5 votes is the way to get a fair community judgment. suggestion: show the answers in chronological order, however add a special mark (red band?) to the (first) one with the highest vote average. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read code that is properly formatted, adding PRE tags is the easiest way to obtain that.
[The QA section does it automatically now, I hope we soon get it on regular forums as well]
-
For Quick Answers we've implemented an 'Accept Answer' feature. Perhaps some of you aren't aware of this and if so that's part of the problem. Let me briefly explain what it's all about. After a member posts a question and receives at least one answer he/she has the ability to click 'Accept Answer' on any of the answers. Our thought is that this would be useful for answer seekers who will be able to more easily identify the best answer(s). It may be the case that the author of the question is best able to judge what is the best answer for his/her question. But I'd have to admit that this is also often not the case, in practice. Accepted Answers as its been implemented and how it's being used just isn't working out well at the moment. Here are my main concerns: 1) Does provide value to the site? 2) If not, should we simply remove this feature and just leverage the best voted/rated answers by the community? Maybe this is sufficient or even more accurate? 3) Can we salvage the feature but improve it somehow? 4) Other thoughts?
I'm glad you asked. It's probably fine how it is... the problem seems to be the users, and changing them isn't going to happen. However, you can guide them a bit. Here are my ideas. Each answer must also come with a summary/title (basically, a short version of the answer). Next, the questioner would only get to see the first answer "free of charge". Only the title of the other answers are shown (to anybody). In order to expose the second answer, the questioner must select either "Answer Was Useful" or "Answer Wasn't Useful" ("was useful" would "accept" the answer). And in order to see the third answer, they must click one of those buttons on the second answer. And so on. And an answerer can see all of his/her answers regardless of if they've been accepted/rejected (and delete them before the questioner gets a chance to see it). If an answer has not been accepted/rejected for a week, it will automatically be made viewable. Notifications/updates are also something to consider. Posting an answer shouldn't move it to the top of the list of latest questions, unless it is the first answer and it is immediately viewable (or if all previous answers have been accepted/rejected, in which case posting that answer would mean it would become immediately visible). When the questioner accepts/rejects an answer, then the next answer becomes visible and causes the entire question to go to the top of the "latest questions" list. And in case you are wondering why I think answers should have titles, it would be to give others an idea of what answers have already been posted, so they can at least avoid repeating an answer without actually seeing the full answer. P.S. "Accept" is an ambiguous term for answers. What does it really mean? I can see a questioner interpreting "accepting" an answer as meaning that the answer gets posted for others to see (maybe they think they are the only ones who can see answers until they accept them). I've seen evidence of this with clearly useless answers that have been accepted by the questioner.
-
Two things are important: telling people with the same question "go here" and telling people looking for questions to answer "this one is solved, no need to read". It's the one thing I was missing from the CP boards from the rocky starts. However, all Q&A sites I've seen have draconian incentives for askers to come back and "close" questions (e.g. EE has topic moderators force-accept answers, SO gives reputation and shows "acceptance rates" of the poster with every question. I don't rememebr CG that well, but there was something, too). So, corollary: people who come to web sites to ask questions don't come back to tell if it helped. I'd say: - keep it - encourage (e.g. give users a link to their unanswered questions when they log in, or when they post a new question) - "somehow" separate the dead from the active questions.
Personally, I love the idea that Raymond spends his nights posting bad regexs to mailing lists under the pseudonym of Jane Smith. He'd be like a super hero, only more nerdy and less useful. [Trevel]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v serverpeterchen wrote:
incentives
That seems to be key. Perhaps disallow them from seeing answers to new questions unless they accept/reject all the answers to all previous questions? And make it stupid simple to do so ("In order to see this answer, please accept/reject answer number 5 at this previous question you posted a week ago.")... links would be in place where appropriate.
-
I'm glad you asked. It's probably fine how it is... the problem seems to be the users, and changing them isn't going to happen. However, you can guide them a bit. Here are my ideas. Each answer must also come with a summary/title (basically, a short version of the answer). Next, the questioner would only get to see the first answer "free of charge". Only the title of the other answers are shown (to anybody). In order to expose the second answer, the questioner must select either "Answer Was Useful" or "Answer Wasn't Useful" ("was useful" would "accept" the answer). And in order to see the third answer, they must click one of those buttons on the second answer. And so on. And an answerer can see all of his/her answers regardless of if they've been accepted/rejected (and delete them before the questioner gets a chance to see it). If an answer has not been accepted/rejected for a week, it will automatically be made viewable. Notifications/updates are also something to consider. Posting an answer shouldn't move it to the top of the list of latest questions, unless it is the first answer and it is immediately viewable (or if all previous answers have been accepted/rejected, in which case posting that answer would mean it would become immediately visible). When the questioner accepts/rejects an answer, then the next answer becomes visible and causes the entire question to go to the top of the "latest questions" list. And in case you are wondering why I think answers should have titles, it would be to give others an idea of what answers have already been posted, so they can at least avoid repeating an answer without actually seeing the full answer. P.S. "Accept" is an ambiguous term for answers. What does it really mean? I can see a questioner interpreting "accepting" an answer as meaning that the answer gets posted for others to see (maybe they think they are the only ones who can see answers until they accept them). I've seen evidence of this with clearly useless answers that have been accepted by the questioner.
Oh, and in addition to "Answer Was Useful" and "Answer Wasn't Useful", perhaps offer an "I Already Have My Answer" button (would really do the same thing as "Answer Wasn't Useful", which is nothing but display the next answer for all to see).
-
I kinda like the MSDN forum model. You have a post (or multiple posts) that can be marked as Answer. I think you should do the same. Multiple posts should be markable as "Accepted Answer" and only the OP should be able to do that. And remove the 1,2,3,4,5 based voting system and just implement a "Post was useful" button. Internally this can just add a 5-vote (1-4 votes are disallowed for Quick answers). This way you won't have to make too many coding changes. An "Accepted Answer" may nor may not have "Useful/5" votes.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com linkYour answer was both thoughtful and logical. We appreciate the time you took to formulate this, and wish to thank you for your timely response. In order that we operate in a completely transparent and open fashion, we're notifying you that we'll be summarily rejecting this, in favor of a more convoluted and arbitrary solution. This solution will please no one, solve nothing, and likely cause more problems than it's worth, however we feel confident that in the long run it will most certainly be the wrong thing to do.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Blow
-
I kinda like the MSDN forum model. You have a post (or multiple posts) that can be marked as Answer. I think you should do the same. Multiple posts should be markable as "Accepted Answer" and only the OP should be able to do that. And remove the 1,2,3,4,5 based voting system and just implement a "Post was useful" button. Internally this can just add a 5-vote (1-4 votes are disallowed for Quick answers). This way you won't have to make too many coding changes. An "Accepted Answer" may nor may not have "Useful/5" votes.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com linkNishant Sivakumar wrote:
1-4 votes are disallowed for Quick answers
I am not sure thats a good idea. Certianly in the C# forum we get some total idiot posting "answers" that are bad practice, or plain wrong. For example, "make your control public so a different form can access it directly". We need some way to mark these as bad answers, if only so that the person who posted it and the OP are informed it is not a good idea to follow. Perhaps your authority rating could control the range of votes? Bronze can 5, silver can 4 or 5, and so on?
All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand. My :badger:'s gonna unleash hell on your ass. :badger:tastic!
-
For Quick Answers we've implemented an 'Accept Answer' feature. Perhaps some of you aren't aware of this and if so that's part of the problem. Let me briefly explain what it's all about. After a member posts a question and receives at least one answer he/she has the ability to click 'Accept Answer' on any of the answers. Our thought is that this would be useful for answer seekers who will be able to more easily identify the best answer(s). It may be the case that the author of the question is best able to judge what is the best answer for his/her question. But I'd have to admit that this is also often not the case, in practice. Accepted Answers as its been implemented and how it's being used just isn't working out well at the moment. Here are my main concerns: 1) Does provide value to the site? 2) If not, should we simply remove this feature and just leverage the best voted/rated answers by the community? Maybe this is sufficient or even more accurate? 3) Can we salvage the feature but improve it somehow? 4) Other thoughts?
What exactly is the problem? Is it that very few answers are marked as accepted (meaning only a small number of questioners are doing it), or that the questioners don't seem to understand the concept?
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
For Quick Answers we've implemented an 'Accept Answer' feature. Perhaps some of you aren't aware of this and if so that's part of the problem. Let me briefly explain what it's all about. After a member posts a question and receives at least one answer he/she has the ability to click 'Accept Answer' on any of the answers. Our thought is that this would be useful for answer seekers who will be able to more easily identify the best answer(s). It may be the case that the author of the question is best able to judge what is the best answer for his/her question. But I'd have to admit that this is also often not the case, in practice. Accepted Answers as its been implemented and how it's being used just isn't working out well at the moment. Here are my main concerns: 1) Does provide value to the site? 2) If not, should we simply remove this feature and just leverage the best voted/rated answers by the community? Maybe this is sufficient or even more accurate? 3) Can we salvage the feature but improve it somehow? 4) Other thoughts?
Thiru Thirunavukarasu wrote:
But I'd have to admit that this is also often not the case, in practice.
Well... Only the person asking can really judge if a given answer worked to fix the problem as he actually encountered it. But yeah, that doesn't mean he's capable of picking the best answer to the question he actually asked. IMHO, you should keep it available as a hint to future readers, but make it strictly optional. Many, many users will never come back and "accept" an answer at all, so the more weight you give such a mark the more tempted you'll be to implement some sort of auto-accept feature (based on voting or something)... which then makes the mark completely meaningless.
Thiru Thirunavukarasu wrote:
- Can we salvage the feature but improve it somehow?
A lot of Q&A sites implement something like this, and... Often, the "accepted" answer just hints at what the final solution was for the user. Sometimes, the user comes back and posts his own answer, describing what he finally had to do to solve the problem, but even when that happens it ends up separated (on the page) from the "accepted" solution. It'd be cool if, rather than just allowing users to "accept" an answer, you would prompt them for a bit of extra information, and display that below the accepted answer. Sort of an epilogue. Granted, most users probably wouldn't bother entering anything, but then most users probably won't bother accepting answers anyway - it'd at least give the feature some additional utility in cases where the person asking the question was conscientious about it.
-
What exactly is the problem? Is it that very few answers are marked as accepted (meaning only a small number of questioners are doing it), or that the questioners don't seem to understand the concept?
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
or that the questioners don't seem to understand the concept?
Perish the thought. :rolleyes:
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Blow
-
Your answer was both thoughtful and logical. We appreciate the time you took to formulate this, and wish to thank you for your timely response. In order that we operate in a completely transparent and open fashion, we're notifying you that we'll be summarily rejecting this, in favor of a more convoluted and arbitrary solution. This solution will please no one, solve nothing, and likely cause more problems than it's worth, however we feel confident that in the long run it will most certainly be the wrong thing to do.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Blow
Failure is typically far more likely than success. Especially in a space where there is no good solution. But hey, we'll give it a shot :)
-
I kinda like the MSDN forum model. You have a post (or multiple posts) that can be marked as Answer. I think you should do the same. Multiple posts should be markable as "Accepted Answer" and only the OP should be able to do that. And remove the 1,2,3,4,5 based voting system and just implement a "Post was useful" button. Internally this can just add a 5-vote (1-4 votes are disallowed for Quick answers). This way you won't have to make too many coding changes. An "Accepted Answer" may nor may not have "Useful/5" votes.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com linkNishant Sivakumar wrote:
And remove the 1,2,3,4,5 based voting system and just implement a "Post was useful" button. Internally this can just add a 5-vote (1-4 votes are disallowed for Quick answers). This way you won't have to make too many coding changes.
I agree with Luc on this one. There are shades of grey of correctness/usefulness.
-
Two things are important: telling people with the same question "go here" and telling people looking for questions to answer "this one is solved, no need to read". It's the one thing I was missing from the CP boards from the rocky starts. However, all Q&A sites I've seen have draconian incentives for askers to come back and "close" questions (e.g. EE has topic moderators force-accept answers, SO gives reputation and shows "acceptance rates" of the poster with every question. I don't rememebr CG that well, but there was something, too). So, corollary: people who come to web sites to ask questions don't come back to tell if it helped. I'd say: - keep it - encourage (e.g. give users a link to their unanswered questions when they log in, or when they post a new question) - "somehow" separate the dead from the active questions.
Personally, I love the idea that Raymond spends his nights posting bad regexs to mailing lists under the pseudonym of Jane Smith. He'd be like a super hero, only more nerdy and less useful. [Trevel]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v serverpeterchen wrote:
Two things are important: telling people with the same question "go here" and telling people looking for questions to answer "this one is solved, no need to read". It's the one thing I was missing from the CP boards from the rocky starts.
Spot on! And that's where we want to be. We have suggestions that appear after you've typed in a question. Hopefully that helps to reduce repeat questions. I wonder how people are actually finding it. The other "important" thing is our current concern.
-
What exactly is the problem? Is it that very few answers are marked as accepted (meaning only a small number of questioners are doing it), or that the questioners don't seem to understand the concept?
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001Both :(
-
I'm glad you asked. It's probably fine how it is... the problem seems to be the users, and changing them isn't going to happen. However, you can guide them a bit. Here are my ideas. Each answer must also come with a summary/title (basically, a short version of the answer). Next, the questioner would only get to see the first answer "free of charge". Only the title of the other answers are shown (to anybody). In order to expose the second answer, the questioner must select either "Answer Was Useful" or "Answer Wasn't Useful" ("was useful" would "accept" the answer). And in order to see the third answer, they must click one of those buttons on the second answer. And so on. And an answerer can see all of his/her answers regardless of if they've been accepted/rejected (and delete them before the questioner gets a chance to see it). If an answer has not been accepted/rejected for a week, it will automatically be made viewable. Notifications/updates are also something to consider. Posting an answer shouldn't move it to the top of the list of latest questions, unless it is the first answer and it is immediately viewable (or if all previous answers have been accepted/rejected, in which case posting that answer would mean it would become immediately visible). When the questioner accepts/rejects an answer, then the next answer becomes visible and causes the entire question to go to the top of the "latest questions" list. And in case you are wondering why I think answers should have titles, it would be to give others an idea of what answers have already been posted, so they can at least avoid repeating an answer without actually seeing the full answer. P.S. "Accept" is an ambiguous term for answers. What does it really mean? I can see a questioner interpreting "accepting" an answer as meaning that the answer gets posted for others to see (maybe they think they are the only ones who can see answers until they accept them). I've seen evidence of this with clearly useless answers that have been accepted by the questioner.
Interesting but I'd have to argue against the idea of forcing users to vote. Often the user is unqualified to make a judgement (for various reasons) and so shouldn't be forced to arbitrarily choose one. I often find myself in this situation.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
And in case you are wondering why I think answers should have titles, it would be to give others an idea of what answers have already been posted, so they can at least avoid repeating an answer without actually seeing the full answer.
Good point but won't it be superfluous in many cases? And I wonder how many users wouldn't actually fill this in correctly.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
"Accept" is an ambiguous term for answers
Good point! Suggestions for alternative names?
-
Thiru Thirunavukarasu wrote:
But I'd have to admit that this is also often not the case, in practice.
Well... Only the person asking can really judge if a given answer worked to fix the problem as he actually encountered it. But yeah, that doesn't mean he's capable of picking the best answer to the question he actually asked. IMHO, you should keep it available as a hint to future readers, but make it strictly optional. Many, many users will never come back and "accept" an answer at all, so the more weight you give such a mark the more tempted you'll be to implement some sort of auto-accept feature (based on voting or something)... which then makes the mark completely meaningless.
Thiru Thirunavukarasu wrote:
- Can we salvage the feature but improve it somehow?
A lot of Q&A sites implement something like this, and... Often, the "accepted" answer just hints at what the final solution was for the user. Sometimes, the user comes back and posts his own answer, describing what he finally had to do to solve the problem, but even when that happens it ends up separated (on the page) from the "accepted" solution. It'd be cool if, rather than just allowing users to "accept" an answer, you would prompt them for a bit of extra information, and display that below the accepted answer. Sort of an epilogue. Granted, most users probably wouldn't bother entering anything, but then most users probably won't bother accepting answers anyway - it'd at least give the feature some additional utility in cases where the person asking the question was conscientious about it.
Shog9 wrote:
Sometimes, the user comes back and posts his own answer, describing what he finally had to do to solve the problem, but even when that happens it ends up separated (on the page) from the "accepted" solution.
Excellent point - a completely valid scenario that no site (I've seen) has successfully addressed! I'll discuss this further in my next post.
Shog9 wrote:
rather than just allowing users to "accept" an answer, you would prompt them for a bit of extra information, and display that below the accepted answer
Not a bad idea but, like you said, it simply wouldn't be used.
-
For Quick Answers we've implemented an 'Accept Answer' feature. Perhaps some of you aren't aware of this and if so that's part of the problem. Let me briefly explain what it's all about. After a member posts a question and receives at least one answer he/she has the ability to click 'Accept Answer' on any of the answers. Our thought is that this would be useful for answer seekers who will be able to more easily identify the best answer(s). It may be the case that the author of the question is best able to judge what is the best answer for his/her question. But I'd have to admit that this is also often not the case, in practice. Accepted Answers as its been implemented and how it's being used just isn't working out well at the moment. Here are my main concerns: 1) Does provide value to the site? 2) If not, should we simply remove this feature and just leverage the best voted/rated answers by the community? Maybe this is sufficient or even more accurate? 3) Can we salvage the feature but improve it somehow? 4) Other thoughts?
Thanks for your thoughts guys! It looks like the concensus is to keep the idea of 'Accepted Answer' around but that it needs to be tweaked somewhat. I'd like to bring up a few notable ideas. Maybe we can discuss these in a bit more detail. 1) The phrase 'Accept Answer' may be unclear. What can we possibly rename this to? 'Useful Answer'? But we also don't want to encourage users to "accept" too many answers (or do we). The original idea is to have one or very few answers as directly addressing the question. I.e. a question with a useful/best/accepted answer with perhaps some equally useful alternatives. 2) Should we allow the question author to post an answer to his/her own question and accept it? Shog brought up an excellent point (here[^]) where this is a totally valid scenario. Maybe we could colour the background of such an accepted answer slightly different than regular accepted answers? Also, there would be no reputation awarded for accepting your own answer to prevent users from gaming. 3) Other thoughts?
-
Oh, and in addition to "Answer Was Useful" and "Answer Wasn't Useful", perhaps offer an "I Already Have My Answer" button (would really do the same thing as "Answer Wasn't Useful", which is nothing but display the next answer for all to see).
How about a "I was just trolling" or "My answer was urgentz. Was. Is no longer urgentz".
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
How about a "I was just trolling" or "My answer was urgentz. Was. Is no longer urgentz".
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Those are so common they should probably just be the defaults. The user would have to indicate otherwise.
-
Interesting but I'd have to argue against the idea of forcing users to vote. Often the user is unqualified to make a judgement (for various reasons) and so shouldn't be forced to arbitrarily choose one. I often find myself in this situation.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
And in case you are wondering why I think answers should have titles, it would be to give others an idea of what answers have already been posted, so they can at least avoid repeating an answer without actually seeing the full answer.
Good point but won't it be superfluous in many cases? And I wonder how many users wouldn't actually fill this in correctly.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
"Accept" is an ambiguous term for answers
Good point! Suggestions for alternative names?
Thiru Thirunavukarasu wrote:
Often the user is unqualified to make a judgement
Then maybe add another button: "This Answer Is Unclear". Or a more general: "I Can't Decide Right Now". They can always select a different button later. And forcing them to choose one option will get more people to choose the correct option (although may have the unintended effect of having more people choose the wrong option). I think part of the problem is that people have no reason to indicate what they thought of the answer... they get their answer and ignore Code Project until they need something again. My suggestions forces them to be a little more interactive (i.e., actually open Code Project in their browser, rather than just reading answers in their email). And it makes the accept/reject feature immediately obvious. Otherwise, they might not even notice it or take the time to think of what it means.
Thiru Thirunavukarasu wrote:
I wonder how many users wouldn't actually fill this in correctly.
Well, I'd say you need to think who you are trying to please. There are basically three groups of users. Those who ask questions (questioners), those who post answers (answerers), and those who search for their problems to find the corresponding answers (searchers). It seems you will please questioners by giving them their answers. You will please the answerers by forcing the questioners to provide feedback. And you will please the searchers with the same feedback provided by the questioners. You might also want to consider that there are mostly a few answerers that do most of the answering. Most of them, I'm guessing, would be happy to improve the QA system, so I'm sure they'd fill in titles correctly. If they don't, then their answer is probably rubbish too, in which case other answerers can assume that and provide their own answer with a better title. I think by shifting the responsibility from the questioners to the answerers, it will be in more capable hands, and the QA system will benefit from it.
Thiru Thirunavukarasu wrote:
Suggestions for alternative names
"I Like This Answer", "This is a Good Answer", "I Need A Better Answer", "I Want Another Answer", "This Answer is Useful", "This Answer Isn't Useful".
