Return to Answer

P.S. Perhaps some will say I'm complaining unnecessarily; I'm really not and am very fortunate to have gained the rep I have on gamedev specifically. But given this state of affairs, I will henceforth be far more frugal with the questions I actually choose to answer, as it clear that the average SE user is not being encouraged sufficiently to thank those who spend their time responding.

I'm no. 12 on gamedev.SE, and the number of questions I have answered that have received zero attention is considerable. The same goes for many other top users there, at least those who don't observe the user carefully before answering (you see, perhaps it is I who is the charitable fool that likes to help the brand new users...and I who pays the price for it). This has increased noticeably since the accept rate vanished from easy public view. I have begun to feel that the typical user has the attention span of an orange. I mention my rank only because it implies I'm no idiot as far as game dev (and to some degree, general programming) goes. I get 0 or if I'm lucky, 1 vote, and those answers are most often never accepted. Then rarely we hit the jackpot with unremarkable answers and get tons of votes. The imbalance here is utterly disproprtionate. I have to explicitly ask, months or years after the fact, for the checkmark on such answers, provided no one else received it or I got the most votes (often just marginally). About 1 in 6 such users then responds apologetically and with thanks. But that's rare, regardless of the assistance provided.

FWIW I'm no. 12 on gamedev.SE for the moment, and the number of answers I've given that have received zero attention, even in cases where there are no other answers, is considerable. The same goes for many other top users there, at least those who don't observe the user carefully before answering (you see, perhaps it is I who is the charitable fool that likes to help the brand new users...and I who pays the price for it). This has increased noticeably since the accept rate vanished from easy public view. I've begun to feel that the typical user has the attention span of an orange. I mention my rank only because it implies I'm no idiot as far as the sites have a few thousand points on. I get 0 or if I'm lucky, 1 vote, and those are most often never accepted. Rarely, we hit the jackpot with unremarkable answers and get tons of votes; the imbalance here is utterly disproportionate. I have to explicitly ask, months or years after the fact, for the checkmark on such answers, provided no one else received it or I got the most votes (often just marginally). About 1 in 6 such users then responds apologetically and with thanks. That's rare, regardless of the assistance provided.

Funny how the word "meritocracy" has taken on a bad connotation in certain contexts in today's world. At first superficial glance, one would swear that that's exactly what SE is, and what it was always intended to be - a meritocracy with top respondents gaining a reputation par excellence. And rightly so, given the value they add to the state of globally-available knowledge. Productivity and quality communities come first, individuals come second. Those who spend considerable time putting quality knowledge into SE deserve big rewards, to encourage them to continue to act, thereby possibly producing more masters (programmers/writers/mathematicians/what have you). "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." So support those who ultimately help the uncounted many.

Sadly, what's good for the goose apparently isn't good for the gander. It is more than acceptable, encouraged in fact, for top respondents to put their time (often considerable amounts of it) into answering questions, but to expect the simple courtesy of a single vote or an accept is apparently somehow absurd because this implies we are being incredibly selfish. We are supposed to be charitable, expect nothing in return.

Funny how the word "meritocracy" has taken on a bad connotation in certain contexts in today's world. At first superficial glance, one would swear that that's exactly what SE is, and what it was always intended to be - a meritocracy with top respondents gaining a reputation par excellence. And rightly so, given the value they add to the state of globally-available knowledge. Productivity and quality communities come first, and thereby, individuals benefit most. Those who spend considerable time putting quality knowledge into SE deserve fair rewards, to encourage them to continue to act, possibly producing more masters (programmers/writers/mathematicians/what have you). "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." So support those who ultimately help the uncounted many.

Sadly, what's good for the goose apparently isn't good for the gander. It is more than acceptable, encouraged in fact, for top respondents to put their time (often considerable amounts of it) into answering questions, but to expect the simple courtesy of a single vote or an accept is apparently somehow absurd because this creates an atmosphere of mutual monitoring. When in society have we ever not monitored others? Respondents are supposed to be altruistic, expecting nothing in return.