6

Let's suppose we know what it looks like to "show your work" in an exegesis answer and let's suppose you read an answer that fails to meet the minimum standard. If you come back to that answer a few weeks later and it hasn't been improved, what would action should we take?


I'm including two pre-filled options that I think are reasonable. I originally considered a few other ideas and GoneQuiet helped refine them, but I the options can be boiled down into two philosophies:

  • Judge answers on their own.

  • Judge answers in the context of the other answers to the question.

4
  • @GoneQuiet: Well, I don't think we can tell if you vote up one and vote down the other unless you tell us! If I could vote, I'd probably only vote on one of the answers. But if you strongly favor one and strongly oppose the other, I think it's fine to vote that way.
    – Jon Ericson Mod
    Apr 23 '13 at 22:37
  • Is this supposed to be a 'what do we do about answers that don't show their work' or a precursor to that question? Apr 26 '13 at 13:19
  • 2
    @JackDouglas: It's really a precursor. I'm trying to do the "vision thing". But I don't think it will require much imagination to see how we get where we want to go once we know the goal.
    – Jon Ericson Mod
    Apr 26 '13 at 16:00
  • @GoneQuiet Re flag: I decided against tagging faq on the basis that this isn't really written in a way that would make any sense to somebody new to the site hitting this issue for the first time. Its more of an advanced user discussion about moderation.
    – Caleb
    Jul 18 '13 at 0:14
7

Judge answers on their own.

Such answers should either be:

  • Downvoted with a score of -3 or less (so that they are greyed out) with explanatory comments.

or

  • Annotated with a post notice.

or

  • Deleted.
-2

Judge answers in the context of the other answers to the question.

Such answers should either be:

  • Buried under one or more clearly superior answers

or

  • Have a score of 0 or less with explanatory comments.

or

  • Annotated with a post notice.

or

  • Deleted.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/557/what-do-we-want-to-do-with-answers-that-arent-very-useful-and-dont-show-their/558
hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-49
122603
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:M3A7CWVYTDX5BJKA7J423PTZRWUFTTLD
<urn:uuid:8d2e0e71-6a40-4c3c-928a-a13d76c773c5>
2021-12-04T23:49:23Z
151.101.193.69
text/html
sha1:3XERIFOTAJFKC3IRZ5LOTL6OGBXXTXSP
<urn:uuid:b526b7e9-9877-4b7a-9045-49d3943daba1>
https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/557/what-do-we-want-to-do-with-answers-that-arent-very-useful-and-dont-show-their/558
response
<urn:uuid:b188f222-902a-41f3-af2a-5124dea0aede>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-49
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November/December 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-133
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.3-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/