8

I've recently found This Question. It had an answer from a 1 rep user.

Kenjara Wrote:

We found it in an alley on the upper floor of the Disney castle.

It could of course be random though.

Kendall wrote:

I also found him on the upper level of the castle. He gifts you with 1000 blue sparks :)

Both were posted as answers, yet Kendall answered a week later. As I see it, Kenjara answered the question. Kendall merely said "yea I found it there too. Plus he gives you xyz".

In my opinion, it's not an answer. The answer was already given and the user simply repeated it by saying that he did the same as the guy in another answer, and added a small comment. Yet my flag was declined because

flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong

Which was not why I flagged it.

So should I just stop flagging "+1" answers? Because that's what that is and a moderator saw it fit to maintain it.

| | | | | |
  • 1
    Yes, you should be flagging me too answers. Since you have 2k rep you can access the LQP queue, you would notice that there is a pre-filled comment for me too answers that you can use when you vote to delete. – angussidney Apr 22 '16 at 22:33
  • After 11 days the answer is still there, so it appears it's okay to repeat information aka "I also found this to work" – Oak May 3 '16 at 20:16
9

Yes, you should flag these answers! This kind of addition should have been posted as a comment instead or have the original answer edited for clarity if it adds sufficiently to the answer as a whole.

Additionally there is a question on StackExchange Meta about these kinds of questions : Are "me too" answers considered a "noisy" answer detailed in the FAQ?. In short, these kinds of answers generate noise which disrupts the QA format StackExchange (and indirectly Arqade) is based on.

| | | | | |
8

Firstly, yes you should flag duplicate answers. I would only reserve this action for obvious duplicates.

Without knowing the game, it is possible that both answers are in fact different.

One answer specifically states:

We found it in an alley on the upper floor of the Disney castle.

Whilst another:

I also found him on the upper level of the castle.

However, the second answer doesn't state it was in the alley (i.e. exactly the same place). The only thing we are certain is that the user found him in the upper level of the castle.

If you look at the accepted answer we can see that the correct answer is most likely that the location is random. With both answers existing, it is possible for someone to explore the mentioned alley, but also other areas of the upper floor of the castle.

Like I said, I don't know the game. If the upper floor only has an alley then I would suggest that both answers are exactly the same. This also applies if the original poster can confirm it was found in the same alley. Without this knowledge I cannot say for certain that these 2 answers are the same.

| | | | | |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11500/are-me-too-answers-meant-to-be-flagged-or-not
gaming.meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-24
126196
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:5IO7JYAU3UICU5XUA46G5NIWI6SXEY5X
<urn:uuid:dd3aaee3-1c6c-47b9-9c3d-31816e3d7856>
2020-05-25T23:02:36Z
151.101.65.69
text/html
sha1:H2E4SCY5NYMLXXM2MHD7RVKTUXCI2ZV2
<urn:uuid:dfa07bbd-e188-413f-9671-a631e2452572>
https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11500/are-me-too-answers-meant-to-be-flagged-or-not
response
<urn:uuid:2f6c8744-0628-447e-ba1d-5ed4405e1611>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-24
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May/June 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-60.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/