Return to Answer

• Mentioning the accept rate is considered so unconstructive that mods will delete such comments and so prevalent that flagging them auto-deletes them

• Skipping questions from users with a low accept rate is discouraged

• The rate gives no indication of why it is what it is:

  • "There are occasions where accepting isn't practical".
  • Some users accept answers solely to increase their rate
    
    

• "[A]ccepting answers is not required" (unless you want people to treat you with respect and answer your question, apparently)

• Mentioning the accept rate is considered so unconstructive that mods will delete such comments and so prevalent that flagging them auto-deletes them

• Skipping questions from users with a low accept rate is discouraged

• The rate gives no indication of why it is what it is:

  • "There are occasions where accepting isn't practical".
  • Some users accept answers solely to increase their rate
    
    

• "[A]ccepting answers is not required" (unless you want people to treat you with respect and answer your question, apparently)

First let me address the only real positive I've seen claimed about the accept rate:

And it is horrible; I reject the claim some have made that having a low accept rate displayed is not a form of punishment and shaming. To quote a comment made on an answer to another question:

1. Their questions may still be useful to others if answered.
2. It's easier to use a throwaway account each time than get engaged in the site; the punishment may be ineffective.
3. Have you seen how many people continually post crap without learning their lesson, even if their questions go unanswered? Again, the punishment is ineffective.
4. You'll always have people like me who will answer a decent question if they can regardless of who asked it, why they asked it, or whether they've accepted previous answers. The punishment is ineffective.
5. If the punishment's ineffective, the only point in executing it is vindictiveness. I don't want to participate in a site that promotes vindictive behavior.
6. How can it be valid to ignore questions but invalid to ignore answers (not accept them)? This behavior seems inherently hypocritical to me. We don't stamp "ignores questions from low accept rate users" on user cards, why should we be stamping "low accept rate" on user cards either? Questions require effort and have value too, not just answers. Ignoring a question due to an external factor harms the site.

• Mentioning the accept rate is considered so unconstructive that mods will delete such comments and so prevalent that flagging them auto-deletes them

• Skipping questions from users with a low accept rate is discouraged

• The rate gives no indication of why it is what it is:

  • "There are occasions where accepting isn't practical".
  • Some users accept answers solely to increase their rate
    
    

• "[A]ccepting answers is not required" (unless you want people to treat you with respect and answer your question, apparently)

First let me address the only real positive I've seen claimed about the accept rate:

And it is horrible; I reject the claim some have made that having a low accept rate displayed is not a form of punishment and shaming. To quote a comment made on an answer to another question:

1. Their questions may still be useful to others if answered.
2. It's easier to use a throwaway account each time than get engaged in the site; the punishment may be ineffective.
3. Have you seen how many people continually post crap without learning their lesson, even if their questions go unanswered? Again, the punishment is ineffective.
4. You'll always have people like me who will answer a decent question if they can regardless of who asked it, why they asked it, or whether they've accepted previous answers. The punishment is ineffective.
5. If the punishment's ineffective, the only point in executing it is vindictiveness. I don't want to participate in a site that promotes vindictive behavior.
6. How can it be valid to ignore questions but invalid to ignore answers (not accept them)? This behavior seems inherently hypocritical to me. We don't stamp "ignores questions from low accept rate users" on user cards, why should we be stamping "low accept rate" on user cards either? Questions require effort and have value too, not just answers. Ignoring a question due to an external factor harms the site.

• Mentioning the accept rate is considered so unconstructive that mods will delete such comments and so prevalent that flagging them auto-deletes them

• Skipping questions from users with a low accept rate is discouraged

• The rate gives no indication of why it is what it is:

  • "There are occasions where accepting isn't practical".
  • Some users accept answers solely to increase their rate
    
    

• "[A]ccepting answers is not required" (unless you want people to treat you with respect and answer your question, apparently)

First let me address the only real positive I've seen claimed about the accept rate:

And it is horrible; I reject the claim some have made that having a low accept rate displayed is not a form of punishment and shaming. To quote a comment made on an answer to another question:

1. Their questions may still be useful to others if answered.
2. It's easier to use a throwaway account each time than get engaged in the site; the punishment may be ineffective.
3. Have you seen how many people continually post crap without learning their lesson, even if their questions go unanswered? Again, the punishment is ineffective.
4. You'll always have people like me who will answer a decent question if they can regardless of who asked it, why they asked it, or whether they've accepted previous answers. The punishment is ineffective.
5. If the punishment's ineffective, the only point in executing it is vindictiveness. I don't want to participate in a site that promotes vindictive behavior.
6. How can it be valid to ignore questions but invalid to ignore answers (not accept them)? This behavior seems inherently hypocritical to me. We don't stamp "ignores questions from low accept rate users" on user cards, why should we be stamping "low accept rate" on user cards either? Questions require effort and have value too, not just answers. Ignoring a question due to an external factor harms the site.

• Mentioning the accept rate is considered so unconstructive that mods will delete such comments and so prevalent that flagging them auto-deletes them

• Skipping questions from users with a low accept rate is discouraged

• The rate gives no indication of why it is what it is:

  • "There are occasions where accepting isn't practical".
  • Some users accept answers solely to increase their rate
    
    

• "[A]ccepting answers is not required" (unless you want people to treat you with respect and answer your question, apparently)

First let me address the only real positive I've seen claimed about the accept rate:

And it is horrible; I reject the claim some have made that having a low accept rate displayed is not a form of punishment and shaming. To quote a comment made on an answer to another question:

1. Their questions may still be useful to others if answered.
2. It's easier to use a throwaway account each time than get engaged in the site; the punishment may be ineffective.
3. Have you seen how many people continually post crap without learning their lesson, even if their questions go unanswered? Again, the punishment is ineffective.
4. You'll always have people like me who will answer a decent question if they can regardless of who asked it, why they asked it, or whether they've accepted previous answers. The punishment is ineffective.
5. If the punishment's ineffective, the only point in executing it is vindictiveness. I don't want to participate in a site that promotes vindictive behavior.
6. How can it be valid to ignore questions but invalid to ignore answers (not accept them)? This behavior seems inherently hypocritical to me. We don't stamp "ignores questions from low accept rate users" on user cards, why should we be stamping "low accept rate" on user cards either? Questions require effort and have value too, not just answers. Ignoring a question due to an external factor harms the site.

• Mentioning the accept rate is considered so unconstructive that mods will delete such comments and so prevalent that flagging them auto-deletes them

• Skipping questions from users with a low accept rate is discouraged

• The rate gives no indication of why it is what it is:

  • "There are occasions where accepting isn't practical".
  • Some users accept answers solely to increase their rate
    
    

• "[A]ccepting answers is not required" (unless you want people to treat you with respect and answer your question, apparently)