Please consider upvoting the questions you answer

Question

This is something I have noticed recently, where a question will have more answers than upvotes, and it seems a little unfair because if there were no questions, there would be nothing to answer.

I realize that some people only want to write answers and that is fine, but rep points are an important part of the system and if people aren't going to upvote questions, it means that people will have less incentive to write questions.

If someone took the time to write a question that is interesting enough to answer, then I think you should upvote the question to say thanks.

Personally, between this and the users who will insinuate that you are stupid if you don't know the answer, I am not sure I want to write questions that I can't self-answer.

Answer 1

This has come up on the wider meta.se on occasion as well. I think it is a good idea - and it doesn't cost anything - but the general consensus is that while it is good practice, we can't obviously force people.

Answer 2

Also the opposite applies, If you wrote a question and someone has made an attempt to answer it. Vote on the answer or leave a comment requesting more work. There should not be any answers without a vote or comment.

Someone is doing their best to help when you asked for it. Let them know they helped, or at least tell them why their answer missed the mark.

Answer 3

Charlie Brumbaugh, thanks for bringing this up. I like to vote, so this subject is really important to me.

You've done a great job of explaining your thoughts, as have the people who've answered you. My comments got too long so I wrote an answer. I apologize for the redundancies.

The bottom line, as you said, is that if a question is worth our answer, it deserves our vote.

Unfortunately the SE system is set up so answers are far more highly rewarded than questions. Question votes get 5 rep, (2 more if they accept an answer), but answers get 10, and accepted answers get another 15. It's a huge discrepancy, and is another reason not to answer a question without upvoting it. In fact, it can even appear self-serving to answer a question without upvoting.

Question upvoting empowers people. This is true for everyone, but especially new users. It takes 15 rep to upvote, 50 to comment and 125 to downvote. People can't fully participate unless we help them. It's really sad to see people ask a few questions, not get to the threshold they need to become active community members, and give up. It's especially sad when those same people have answers on their questions, which goes back to your original point!

If we have an answer but don't feel the question is up to our standards, we should edit the question (which may help many people down the line), or leave a comment asking for clarification, before answering. This is also part of the SE instruction not to answer questions which need work. See Answer well-asked questions in the Help Center.

@James Jenkins also made an extremely important point. The question OP should pay attention to all their answers. The first answer is not always the best. Every answer to our questions should have a vote (either up or down) or a comment, or both. Lots of people don't answer right away, but their contribution is just as important. It takes courage to add an answer when there are already others, especially if one is accepted. Late answers often get fewer votes, even though they can be just as good or better.

Anonymous voting is one of the most important foundations of the SE model. If you don't want to upvote when you answer, in case it exposes you as the voter, please remember to come back later and upvote. That way the question OP gets the support they deserve, and the answer OP keeps their voting anonymity.

Of course @Rory Alsop is right too. We can't control what people do, but discussions like this are encouraging, and valuable. I hope this one results in a stronger, happier community.

Answer 4

I usually do upvote questions that I answer, but not always.

Sometimes a question is not very good, but not bad enough to downvote or vote to close. If it is ambiguous, I'll either leave a comment asking for more information, or just move on and find a better way to spend my volunteer time.

However, sometimes a poor question gets into a good topic that I feel like espousing on. In that case I'll write a answer, but not upvote the question because I don't think it deserves it. I don't want to encourage the OP to write more poor questions.

If the meaning seems clear, just the writing bad, then it can be appropriate to edit the question. I've done that occasionally, but there is also a considerable downside to that. We don't want people coming here, dumping bad questions on us, and having others fix it for them. That too easily becomes a habit. Not only does it teach the OP that they can be sloppy, but everyone else watching too.

While having more traffic here would be good, quality of what is here is much more important. I would much rather see the site stay in beta for another few years, than to graduate with a bunch of crappy questions. We want the volume up, but only of good questions. Those who write bad questions are not who we want to retain here.