15

So I came across this question today. I saw that the second most upvoted answer on the question only referenced the accepted answer and added an extra piece of information, so I decided to edit the reference out as it didn't seem relevant (did not answer the question).

Afterwards, I went back to the question and realised that the answer was completely unrelated to the question, and only expands on it in a manner that is interesting but irrelevant to the question being asked. As the user originally noted in their post, it should have been a comment on the accepted answer.

That said, the post has 33 upvotes, so some people obviously liked it. It's really just a "hack", however, and I don't think it has a place as an answer to that question.

There's another answer of a similar nature on that page, but it has been downvoted a bunch, probably because it's incorrect.

What should be done about posts of this nature? Should they simply stick around, because of historical significance? Should they be edited into an actual answer? Perhaps they should be placed as comments on the actual answer?

Any suggestions welcome.

10
  • 2
    I'm leaning towards "historical significance", but only because I think there are bigger fish to fry.
    – BoltClock
    Commented Jan 12, 2018 at 6:17
  • 1
    Fair enough @BoltClock. I figure it's worth sorting these things out, if only to sort out that we should do nothing.
    – Lauraducky
    Commented Jan 12, 2018 at 6:20
  • 2
    Always a good idea. That's what meta is for. That said, let's see what others have to say.
    – BoltClock
    Commented Jan 12, 2018 at 6:20
  • If it's an attempt at answering I don't really see why anything needs to be done with it, except of course downvote it if you feel it's not a good attempt.
    – ivarni
    Commented Jan 12, 2018 at 6:23
  • 7
    It has +36/-3 so apparently some people came across it and thought it was helpful, isn't that a good thing?
    – ivarni
    Commented Jan 12, 2018 at 6:24
  • 1
    Except it's not really an attempt at answering @ivarni, it's an unrelated piece of information that is only an extra tidbit of information about the accepted answer. It has literally nothing to do with the original question that was asked.
    – Lauraducky
    Commented Jan 12, 2018 at 6:25
  • @ivarni I won't dispute, however, that people might have found it useful. That's why I'm asking the question about it here.
    – Lauraducky
    Commented Jan 12, 2018 at 6:27
  • Is that information readily available somewhere else with high visibility? I can't imagine that tidbit isn't contained in an answer that relates to the question somewhere else on Stack (I am too lazy to check for it myself atm, sorry :/). I'd say it changes things.
    – Patrice
    Commented Jan 12, 2018 at 6:33
  • 1
    I come across content I find out of place all the time. So I do my moderation privileges (vote, flag) if applicable and move on. Just because I personally think so doesn't make it actually so, if it has 30 upvotes then I can only assume somewhere around 15 people voted up seriously and not just followed the voting herd. I'm probably still way too naive when it comes to that assumption, but you need to have some faith in your fellow Stackers.
    – Gimby
    Commented Jan 12, 2018 at 7:53
  • 1
    @ivarni If it's a useful piece of information then there's no problem in the answerer asking a new question tailored to the answer, and then self answering that. That way the useful information is retained, and it correctly fits the QA format. Also with a well written question it'll be easier to find than the answer alone.
    – user310988
    Commented Jan 12, 2018 at 16:15

1 Answer 1

12

While it may not directly answer the OP's question, it is still relevant information within the domain of that question. When a question has already been sufficiently answered, it's not uncommon for other users to tack on additional answers that offer expanded advice or alternatives that do not, by the strictest standards, directly answer the question but which many, many other users find helpful when they are still learning about the technology. Our bar for "not an answer" is actually quite high, because it's extremely difficult to clearly define what "counts" as an answer, so we err on the side of caution. The best way to judge this answer is on whether or not it's useful, and so far the voting history would suggest that it is useful to most people. I say leave it alone.

That said, if you think the advice is wrong or unhelpful, please feel free to downvote it.

1
  • 5
    I believe it is extremely important to look at answers with a broad mind. When you land on a question via a Google search, your problem is related but different. Of course, we don't want people to just throw everything and the kitchen sink on a single question, but additional advice, work around, slightly reformulated problems, etc... are all useful. Commented Jan 12, 2018 at 16:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/361844/what-to-do-about-answers-which-are-highly-upvoted-but-dont-technically-answer-t
meta.stackoverflow.com
CC-MAIN-2024-30
119035
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:OZNBA6KB7MVFNCQMZO7WNHA3DN63ZEGK
<urn:uuid:03cf25f2-8143-4cf0-b469-4e3854860dfe>
2024-07-19T20:29:03Z
104.18.32.7
text/html
sha1:XM2TPNYMLRFRJC3CQQEMPUNUCM2G3EOJ
<urn:uuid:df6513bc-9174-4298-9bde-adeb7e8d6daf>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/361844/what-to-do-about-answers-which-are-highly-upvoted-but-dont-technically-answer-t
response
<urn:uuid:52f2f9bb-66c3-444e-87f5-511ae2e76db8>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-30
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-110
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-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/