Timeline for Reward for close voters finding appropriate duplicates? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
42 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 22, 2025 at 18:11 | history | closed |
Karl Knechtel Wai Ha Lee il_raffa Dominique Dan Getz |
Duplicate of It's time to reward the duplicate finders | |
| Nov 17, 2025 at 19:34 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 22, 2025 at 18:11 | |||||
| May 3, 2018 at 16:49 | answer | added | Gordon Bean | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 23, 2017 at 12:37 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:15 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| May 24, 2016 at 20:32 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 24, 2016 at 21:15 | |||||
| Apr 20, 2016 at 10:30 | comment | added | Siderite Zackwehdex | It all depends on what the end game actually is. If you consider the points system on SO the reward you want to maximize, then quickly answering obvious questions before they are closed works better than helpfully directing the user to the same question and the answers attached. If you are afraid of abuses from people who would overzealously mark questions as duplicates, then at least remove the points awarded for questions that are closed. | |
| Dec 26, 2014 at 16:51 | history | edited | πάντα ῥεῖ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 277 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Dec 20, 2014 at 13:43 | comment | added | apaul | @Pekka웃 you missed one meta.stackexchange.com/q/198958/217863 | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 21:49 | comment | added | neminem | @simonzack That does make sense, I suppose - that constant new posts express a lot more annoyance/interest than just upvoting old posts. It's still funny though. | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 21:13 | comment | added | simonzack | @neminem Meta is entirely different to SO when it comes to duplicates. In SO, if the duplicate answers your question then theres no need to post another. In meta, lots of feature requests are never acted upon, and this shows the community's frustration. | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 19:55 | comment | added | neminem | Soooo much irony in requesting a reward for people to find duplicates instead of posting the same question again, being a topic that has like a dozen duplicates already. I am amused. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 16:51 | comment | added | gnat | related (not a duplicate): Rewarding overzealous users for answering duplicate questions is undermining the site | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 15:11 | history | edited | gnat |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 18, 2014 at 15:04 | answer | added | Chris Sprague | timeline score: 54 | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 10:41 | answer | added | azerafati | timeline score: 19 | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 7:01 | answer | added | TheLostMind | timeline score: -11 | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 21:29 | comment | added | Servy | @simonzack This has all been discussed quite a lot in the duplicates, I refer you to past discussions. I am merely saying that along with this proposal there needs to be a plan for how to prevent abuse, because of the many variations, a lot are very open to abuse. As far as suggested edits, I've seen lots of abusive suggested edits when reviewing them. Sure, there are plenty of good edits to, but to say that there is no (or even very little) abuse is just not true. You also need to consider all of the edits submitted and rejected when considering potential abuse. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 21:28 | history | edited | πάντα ῥεῖ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2014 at 21:25 | comment | added | simonzack | @Servy Something similar which can be done here is to only award rep when the question is actually closed. From personal experience I really haven't seen that much edit abuse, a lot of them are formatting & grammar fixes which I think are helpful. Proposals may need refining, but there's no way to tell whether the negative impact will be "sufficiently small" without a trial is there? Going through with a small beta & A/B testing is already enough to limit any possible damage. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 21:23 | comment | added | Servy | @simonzack Suggested edits are abused plenty, and that's even with a built in mechanism to prevent abuse (namely that the edits need to be approved by reviewers). While you may not necessarily be able to know for sure what the amount of abuse there will be is without trying it out, you should absolutely be prepared to provided evidence for why the abuse of any new feature will be sufficiently small, or what tools will need to be in place to prevent/mitigate abuse. If you can't, then clearly the proposal isn't ready for a beta. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 21:20 | comment | added | simonzack | @Servy But without actually trying it out in a beta there's really no way to know is there? Closest example I can think of is the current edit system, which has a small rep gain, and imo isn't abused much. I think there is a balance between the amount of rep gained to close vs the amount of rep gained to answer the easy question and get upvoted. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 21:16 | comment | added | Servy | @πάνταῥεῖ That's not what your question says though. It specifically talks about rewarding people for finding and closing duplicate questions, not for having your question closed as a duplicate (although that it open to some abuses as well, i.e. the creation of intentional duplicates by sock puppets). If that's really what you're interested in, you need to make that much clearer in the question. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 21:13 | comment | added | πάντα ῥεῖ | @Servy I was actually asking about the good and appropriate choices for marked duplicates, but still getting good acheivement or interest in the original answer. The reward should appear along with the questions' upvotes and being achieved as useful. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 21:09 | comment | added | Servy | @simonzack If you reward people for voting to close every single question of some loosely related but clearly not a duplicate question then you end up causing a lot of harm. Way more than duplicating answers to common questions in many places. So no, you do in fact need to ensure that the system won't cause significant amounts of abuse before putting it in place. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 21:05 | comment | added | simonzack | @Servy We can't perfect everything from the start. I think the easy questions are already abused enough that there's no way this will be abused as much. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:44 | history | edited | πάντα ῥεῖ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:35 | history | edited | πάντα ῥεῖ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:35 | comment | added | Michael Berkowski | @Pekka웃 That's kind of a neat honor. I don't think I'd ever have thought to check tag leaderboards for meta. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:28 | comment | added | Servy | There are a lot of questions on this topic already. The key points that need to be addressed for this to work is that the incentive needs to not result in abuse (flagging non-duplicates as duplicates just for the reward) and also not be more work than just providing an answer to very easy questions. That's a very hard problem to solve. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:28 | comment | added | πάντα ῥεῖ | @Pekka웃 Seems I woke s.o. with similar thoughts ;-P ... | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:27 | comment | added | Pekka |
@Josh A fat lot of good it's done me though! I'm the #1 asker in the status-declined tag. Ah well. :)
|
|
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:27 | history | edited | πάντα ῥεῖ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:25 | history | edited | Pekka | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:25 | comment | added | jscs | Pekka's the leading thinker on this topic. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:25 | comment | added | Pekka | One more: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/116087/… | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:24 | comment | added | πάντα ῥεῖ | @Pekka웃 Oh, well! These are good links about that topic. Let me have some closer look. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:24 | comment | added | Pekka | Related: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/230507/… | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:24 | comment | added | Pekka | Related: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/52530/… | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:23 | comment | added | Pekka | Related: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226016/… | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:23 | comment | added | Pekka | Related: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/90620/… | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:22 | history | asked | πάντα ῥεῖ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |