I'm just wondering, there are some answers those are accepted as an answer but gets no upvote. I thought, any answer that is helpful to get the solution of the question, should get a up vote. Am I right? Or, before giving up vote I should think something else?
-
4Similarly--and this also has been discussed on meta SO--when you answer a question, doesn't it make sense to upvote that question? (Sure, some questions are really bad and they can be answered anyway, but that's rare. If you thought the question was worth answering, please vote for it!) I still can't understand how this site (and many other SO sites) can sport questions with zero upvotes but multiple answers! BTW, this is one situation where your voting pattern is public: when you provide an answer and there are no upvotes for the question, we all know you didn't vote :-).– whuber ModCommented Jan 25, 2013 at 0:46
-
2@whuber As one of the persons who often answers question without up-voting them, let me explain why: I only upvote questions in two cases: Either it should be an interesting question, or it should be something that is sufficiently common that someone else will search for it. The vast majority of the questions do not fall in either of these two categories.– Devdatta TengsheCommented Jan 25, 2013 at 3:33
-
2I try to follow a rule of: Upvote all questions you answer - except when it is too painful.– underdark ModCommented Jan 25, 2013 at 6:59
-
3@Devdatta Thank you for the explanation. I am encouraging you (and everyone else) to rethink this. SE strongly supports upvoting questions for many reasons--that's one reason why there is an (easy) gold badge related to voting for them, "electorate". An upvote is something material we can do to reward people for coming here to ask their question; it gives them some reputation to begin being more active; and it provides more visibility for their question--and therefore for your answer. All in all, it's good for you, the O.P, and the site.– whuber ModCommented Jan 25, 2013 at 14:50
-
1@whuber, I agree to a point -- if the question is poorly written or shows no research I will not upvote it until some effort has been made to improve it.– blah238Commented Jan 25, 2013 at 15:43
-
1@blah That's a good policy. But in most cases if it needs improving you probably shouldn't be answering it in the first place.– whuber ModCommented Jan 25, 2013 at 16:50
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
This question has of course been discussed before on meta.stackoverflow.com: Accepting answer without upvoting?
I particularly like this answer:
Accepting w/out upvoting makes sense in one situation IMHO. If you end up using an answer that you don't like, but works.
For example, if you put some constraint on your question that says "I need to do X, preferably without doing Y", and the only answer is to do Y, you might accept it but not upvote it because it is less than ideal.
My approach is this: if I think an answer is useful and/or correct, I give it an upvote. This is regardless of whether the answer is already accepted or not.
I think this approach is the best way for an individual (me) to contribute to and benefit from SE's community model.
I think this is tricky. If you are asking a question sometimes you don't know the best answer, but close the question with an answer because you think it is the right answer. Being that you might not have a full body of knowledge it would be misleading to double tap and answer every time.
Is isn't a valid point for a "Why won't this compile?" type question, but would be appropriate for "what is a way to optimize this code?"
I find myself trying to remember to upvoting answers during searches since I think this would be an optimal way of supporting the community.