Timeline for Are bounty reputation points assigned to unanswered question returned back?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.mathoverflow.net/ with https://meta.mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Feb 20, 2016 at 22:34 | comment | added | Lev Borisov | I have definitely placed bounty on some questions that have not received an answer. I still think of these as points well spent. | |
| Feb 12, 2016 at 1:52 | comment | added | user9072 | @Alex Such things occur less rarely than you might think. Anyway, a process that will (rarely or not) need moderators' judgment to work qualifies as a can of worms. And, this for precious little in return. | |
| Feb 12, 2016 at 1:46 | comment | added | Alex | Again, such cases will occur very rarely and those issues should be decided by moderators. Such occurrences will happen very rarely and they are not worthy of this discussion. | |
| Feb 12, 2016 at 1:43 | comment | added | user9072 | @Alex so cases where a comment is posted as an answer out of ignorance or as a joke, should be addressed by a moderator and not count as answer (I will note that already there is a judgement to be made what qualifies as "no answer"). What if something is posted as an answer and asker or many others (but maybe not all think), it ought to have been a comment? | |
| Feb 12, 2016 at 1:38 | comment | added | Alex | Those rare cases (of "jokes" or "ignorance") could be addressed through moderators. | |
| Feb 12, 2016 at 1:04 | comment | added | user9072 | @Alex I do not consider this as satisfactory a reply. But, okay. So what if a (new) user posts something that they intended as a comment as an answer (out of inability to comment or ignorance about the workings of the site)? | |
| Feb 12, 2016 at 0:47 | comment | added | Alex | Math overflow members are serious audience - so such "joke-answers" are very improbable ... | |
| Feb 12, 2016 at 0:39 | comment | added | user9072 | @Alex what if a joke-answer is posted? | |
| Feb 12, 2016 at 0:37 | comment | added | Alex | There is a huge difference between "no satisfactory answer", which is subjective opinion and "no answer", which is an objective fact. | |
| Feb 12, 2016 at 0:24 | history | edited | user9072 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
expanded to adress proposals; removed the ad analogy as it became a distraction
|
| Feb 12, 2016 at 0:14 | comment | added | user9072 | @StefanKohl it may be true that the added visibility is not that big, but still it is the intent to give visibility. But personally I do not find bounties for small and mid-sized sites, like MO, overly useful or effective either. This is bit orthogonal though. The point still stands: would bounties be for free it would likely lead to an inflation of bounties. (And "no answer" or "no satisfactory answer" exceptions are opening a can of worms.) | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 21:31 | comment | added | Stefan Kohl Mod | As to the "significant additional visibility" a question gets from a bounty, my impression is rather that the number of additional views a question gets after someone has placed a bounty on it is just about that the question would get after merely editing it -- though it would would be interesting to have this statement either confirmed or refuted by statistical data. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 20:47 | comment | added | Alex | I think that such "safeguard" is counterproductive in the case being discussed here. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 20:43 | comment | added | user9072 | The analogy may not be perfect. However, the main explication is not based on this analogy. It is more an afterthought. The intent is to safeguard against inflationary use of bounties. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 20:38 | comment | added | Alex | The analogy with sales advertisement in my view is not quite adequate. In the case of sales advertisement, there is a clear beneficiary of the "payment" (the newspaper). Bounty is another matter - in its traditional meaning it is just a promise of payment and its realization is due only upon the response/action. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 20:18 | history | edited | user9072 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
expanded
|
| Feb 11, 2016 at 20:15 | comment | added | Alex | So let us discuss it - I added request for discussion into my question. Thanks. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 20:12 | comment | added | user9072 | I do not see what you are getting at. You asked if it is refunded; the answer to which is "No." This answers the question you asked completely. For general information I linked to a related discussion, but just ignore it if you find it not relevant. If instead of seeking information about the situation, you want start a discussion about this, feel free to do so, but state it clearly. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 20:08 | comment | added | Alex | That comment is unclear in stating what exactly is the commenter's position on the situation when there are no answers. To me it sounds that this commenter would not mind if the points would be returned back to the bounty issuer in such cases. I think this case deserves a separate discussion and my question could serve as a vehicle for such discussion. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 20:01 | comment | added | user9072 | The first comment on the question there explicitly mentions the situation that no answer is given. (Besides, I said what this means to me, and in which spirit the answer was written, which I know for a fact as it was me who wrote it, in case that was missed.) | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 19:53 | comment | added | Alex | Such interpretation is quite a stretch - I see a huge difference between such two cases :-) | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 19:43 | comment | added | user9072 | To me "no satisfactory answer" includes "no answer," and the answer there was written in this spirit. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 19:38 | comment | added | Alex | That discussion was mainly focused on the "unsatisfactory" answer situation, rather than on the case where there are no answers at all. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 19:34 | history | answered | user9072 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |