-38

The naming is confusing. The description of the tag doesn't match with its inherited meaning.

If you google 'define bounty':

a monetary gift or reward, typically given by a government, in particular.
a sum paid for killing or capturing a person or animal

Wikipedia:
is a payment or reward often offered by a group as an incentive for the ACCOMPLISHMENT of a task by someone

It is given only when the action is done.

I read this answer which the the Martijn is saying that you should see the bounty as advertising, but that again is incorrect since you are most likely to give it to one who answers your question successfully.

I do understand that one shouldn't just close a bounty because another may be working on giving it an answer, but if the bounty is left without a single answer then the bounty should be half-returned or something. The site + community didn't deliver. Saying in its description that it doesn't guarantee is 1) contrary to the word's meaning 2) unfair to those who don't get any answer.

EDIT:

Suggestion for its name: On the OP's side it should be promote On the viewers side it should be bounty

Suggestion for how to kill off a bounty:

This bounty is going to end in 3 days, answers after that won't be granted bounty & return half of reputation to OP.? The question's page should have a timer.

It's funny that no one is even thinking out of the box, that there is something wrong with the way bounty is structured. Perhaps I didn't point in the right direction, but that's why I also tagged discussion so others could find someway to improve SO's understandability and usability.

You can See here for similar instances were people had inherited thoughts of its meaning and then later others nuked their question just like this. :).

Bounties that expire with no answer

Bounty policy for refunding reputation?

CONCLUSION: see here. I have officially lost my case in the supreme court.

| |
  • 1
    You're going to bounty here? That's courageous. – πάντα ῥεῖ Aug 18 '16 at 18:20
  • What exactly would be the purpose of renaming it? less confusion? different intended use? clarity? By definition a sticking a bounty on some target inherently advertises the task to users who are looking for a reward. We can't not take the reputation away at the end if an acceptable answer isn't found because then you could simply never award a bounty even if you did get an acceptable answer and keep your rep. That would be unfair. – Kevin B Aug 18 '16 at 18:21
  • So... if we all agree that on Stack, bounty means "offering a rep reward so people can see your question in a different tab", problem solved? I really don't see why changing a name because ONE definition doesn't match our use of it would be beneficial... Rep isn't REALLY counted in points either, so should we rename that as well? – Patrice Aug 18 '16 at 18:23
  • @KevinB let's say I post a question and still 10 days later there isn't a single answer. I suggest only then, that a message appears on the question stating that the bounty( which again its meaning is getting something done) on this question is going to last for only 3 more days. If no answer is then submitted then half of the rep be returned to the OP – Honey Aug 18 '16 at 18:24
  • that already happens, minus the last part of your comment. Bounties are ordered by how close to the end they are. – Kevin B Aug 18 '16 at 18:25
  • 7
    In the answer you link to, Martijn has helpfully circled the text that says "cannot be refunded". It says it right there when you start the bounty. Changing the name of the feature is not going to help people who cannot be bothered to learn what it is they are getting into. We'll change the name, then someone will say that the warning about it being non-refundable should be in a bigger font, or in red, or blinking, or be a speech bubble said by a shark that has eyes that shoot lasers. – Louis Aug 18 '16 at 18:25
  • @KevinB lol. My whole suggestion si about the last part! – Honey Aug 18 '16 at 18:25
  • 2
    then make that more clear so more people will come in and downvote this. Your suggestion is for renaming bounty, that has nothing to do with the rep reward. – Kevin B Aug 18 '16 at 18:26
  • @Louis Stackoverflow's terminology should adhere to common English. It currently doesn't. Just because the description is written doesn't mean its actually meaningful. Descriptions, rules get changed all the time – Honey Aug 18 '16 at 18:32
  • 2
    If I look up bounty in merriam-webster I don't see much of a problem, specially when looking at the more detailed description. Common English enough for me. – rene Aug 18 '16 at 18:38
  • 2
    What's with the language lawyers out today? – user1228 Aug 18 '16 at 19:10
  • 2
    Look at it this way. You spend 50 rep, your question gets tons of new views, possibly a few upvotes, etc, and then... you don't reward it and you get your rep back. Essentially you paid nothing, and gained rep through upvotes on your post. – Kevin B Aug 18 '16 at 22:36
  • 2
    You gained reputation, and lost only half of what you spent, which you could have easily made up in upvotes on your question. – Kevin B Aug 18 '16 at 22:37
  • 3
    Cross comment: this discussion is also happening at Meta EL&U. – Laurel Aug 19 '16 at 2:27
  • 1
    There is no other english word that I can think of that would fit what bounties currently are better than bounty. – Kevin B Aug 19 '16 at 14:57
7

I see little reason to change the name of bounties since they have a clear and concise definition, and there's little to be gained in conflating that.

However, it does seem that you have some acute misunderstandings as to how the bounty system works to begin with.

It is given only when the action is done.

By the definition of the word, sure; by the definition of the site; not so much.

A bounty can be awarded 24 hours after the bounty was started. Any answer to the question, even an existing answer that has already been awarded one or more bounties, is eligible to be manually awarded the bounty. This still applies if you have already awarded a former bounty to this answer yourself.

It is also the case that the system may automatically award half of the bounty, but two things must occur:

  • The user must not have awarded it themselves, and
  • There must be at least one answer with two upvotes, which would make them eligible for the automatic bounty.

I do understand that one shouldn't just close a bounty because another may be working on giving it an answer, but if the bounty is left without a single answer then the bounty should be half-returned or something. The site + community didn't deliver. Saying in its description that it doesn't guarantee is 1) contrary to the word's meaning 2) unfair to those who don't get any answer.

Well... a question with an active bounty can't be closed except by a moderator (which would involve refunding the bounty). Further to that, the bounty is never given back, since there really isn't a guarantee that anyone will answer or look at the question, and no amount of wordsmithing is going to change that.

The risk is clearly spelled out, though:

If after the end of the bounty period a question has no answers, no bounty will be awarded and the question will no longer be featured.

Bounties are best understood as exchanging reputation for higher question visibility and increased answerer motivation. A bounty does not guarantee a response and is not refunded if none are received.

Think of it like putting a bounty on a notorious train bandit, but the condition is that you want them alive. You've paid a newspaper and the telegraph service a handsome sum of money to get the word out as broadly as you could, and the more amount of cash you pay, the broader they work.

If no one captures the bandit, or someone shows up with the bandit deceased, they're not entitled to the bounty since they didn't fulfill its obligations. The investment to get the word out that you're looking for them is lost, since it's really not the fault of any of the newspapers or telegraph services that you didn't get your man in exactly the way you wanted.

There is a whole heap more information about how bounties work in Meta Stack Exchange; I recommend a perusal of it.

| |
  • Honestly, you didn't add even 0.00001% to my understanding. I had read it completely. :) The similitude is more like "The sheriff will have to pay 10000$ to the local government even if after a week no one comes with a dead body of the criminal." – Honey Aug 18 '16 at 21:56
  • 5
    You may be missing my point @Honey (and also, if you read it I'm confused as to why you still thought that bountied questions could be closed by mere mortals); the sheriff has already paid the cash to the agencies to get the word out. The sheriff isn't entitled to a refund just because they didn't get their man, since the agencies did the service they stated they would. – Makoto Aug 18 '16 at 22:00
  • That's why I suggested he get's half of his reputation back. Half for getting the word out which is done and half for getting the work done, which in this case isn't – Honey Aug 18 '16 at 22:01
  • 2
    @Honey: That's simply not how bounties work. There are longer standing reasons why since a bounty can be used to transfer a large amount of reputation in a very short amount of time. Further, you have to deal with the complications of deleted accounts, migrated questions, and the like - in the cases in which a refund of any kind couldn't be applied at all since there's no account to apply it to. I suppose I'll rephrase: you haven't convinced me why bounties need to be reworded, since most users of the site should look at how the feature works before critiquing it. – Makoto Aug 18 '16 at 22:05
  • If the complications are resolved, would this be a good idea? – Honey Aug 18 '16 at 22:14
  • @Honey Depends on how said complications are resolved. If it's impossible for a user to game the system by purposely not rewarding a bounty so that they can get half the rep back without giving rep to the user who adequately answered the question, maybe. but even then, i'd rather placing a bounty having significant risk, and the only risk we can really apply is not giving a refund. If the risk was lower, everything would be bountied because you'll get your rep back if you don't get a good answer anyway, thus reducing the benefit of bounties overall. – Kevin B Aug 18 '16 at 22:29
  • @Kevin I feel like you intentionally don't want to speak on what I precisely point out to. The risk is half of rep!!!! Also there is no gaming involved. The system already has a mechanism for automatically granting the rep for 2 up-votes. But my concern was mostly on questions where there isn't a single answer to it at ALL, which I had it stated before, Please ctrl + f and search 'single' in the question – Honey Aug 18 '16 at 22:35
  • 2
    I read your entire question. The problem is you cannot ignore the fact that people WILL game the system if you give them the opportunity. – Kevin B Aug 18 '16 at 22:40
  • @KevinB AFAIK, They can't force people to not answer, nor they can downvote more than once! :). Either way with my suggestion or not, they still get upvotes and visibility which is why they are paying half of it for sure. – Honey Aug 18 '16 at 22:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/332721/change-bounty-name-or-change-its-function?noredirect=1
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-29
152151
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:AUVZSDHMDVFOVT4AATH2WWB6NM6QZW3O
<urn:uuid:193e7396-8eca-4f26-a4e1-931bee8bfc1e>
2020-07-03T16:36:50Z
151.101.193.69
text/html
sha1:ZKGVOIFYLAYCTHH4GTXDYD2HVEDHJLZZ
<urn:uuid:2e58badc-5f0f-46a5-b6f8-f279a0a65f5a>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/332721/change-bounty-name-or-change-its-function?noredirect=1
response
<urn:uuid:175d5b46-4e9b-4e37-aab5-8a8b6c78c0d8>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-29
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-124.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-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/