6

There are a lot of duplicates closures all the time, and I often close as duplicate linking to one or several original Q&As I know.

We're refraining from answering and gain rep of course, but we may pay a price for it:

  • (ok self-promotion) sometimes I link to one Q&A where I answered (when it was fully relevant of course!), and in those cases, I didn't notice any more upvotes, even if the duplicate question was upvoted.
  • Also, some OPs tend to see question closure as an aggression, when sometimes we get revenge downvotes or harsh comments from OP for closing the question, even if that provided the solution (okay, he had to replace a by b to match his/her particular case, I know...)

So maybe some text/generic guide could be added either towards the OP or all explaining that:

  • Having a question closed is not a punishment for the OP
  • Let's not forget to upvote the more relevant/up-to-date answer (like here where the upvoted +57 answer is now wrong since python has fixed this behaviour), whereas the latest answer (2 upvotes) provides the correct answer)

Would that be useful, and in which form?

  • 2
    Having "having a question closed is not a punishment for the OP" repeated in every single potential duplicate question feels a bit unappealing to me. Should we rather make the site remind that automatically to the OP? – E_net4 on strike Jul 18 '17 at 9:00
  • 1
    yes, maybe that part should be sent only in the message to the OP, not to all. – Jean-François Fabre Jul 18 '17 at 9:05
  • 4
    Imo a simple text will help a lot of user, but it won't reduce agressive-op. Because those do not read anything except the exact solution they need. Any edit, close vote down vote, will be reject and contest as we do not understand how op question is great, and how it's really important to answer as soon as possible. Without the salt, We really need this to help the one that can be helped. – Drag and Drop Jul 18 '17 at 9:05
  • @DragandDrop there are some frustrating "special ones" that indeed reject the idea that they question isn't unique. They refuse to see the blatantness of the duplicate. Some understand immediately and thank the one who closed (and linked!). There are a lot of users "in the middle" – Jean-François Fabre Jul 18 '17 at 9:10
  • 1
    I'd also mention that, saying that it's not a bad thing isn't necessarily true. It's a sign that they probably didn't do their research, and a pattern of continually asking duplicates can lead to restrictions on the account. – Servy Jul 18 '17 at 13:51
5

I'm not sure you've requested anything specific enough to implement here that improves on the current process and resources already in place. This seems like a request to accommodate a few users that take offence to the way things work on the site. If the user is going to behave in that way, a bit of extra text is unlikely to make a difference.

The comment wording when a duplicate vote is placed:

Possible duplicate of link to question

Is says it is a possible duplicate, so there is an onus on the OP to disprove the dupe target that is being posted. It happens, and I've retracted votes in the past.

When it is closed, with the required number of votes, the question has the header message:

This question already has an answer here:...

The OP then has an option to vote to reopen and comment / update the post to specify why their post is different.

There is also information in the help section of the site, that provides details on the process, not that many people will go to the effort of finding/reading that though.

If you see a question and do not agree that it truly is a duplicate, edit it to highlight the differences, then try to get it reopened by casting a reopen vote.

Perhaps links to this information should be included somewhere?

If an OP isn't willing to put in some effort on their part to be specific about why the post should not be closed as a duplicate and they want to take revenge, then it shouldn't be considered a big deal in my mind.

Re: Voting on dupe targets:

You can't really suggest that people should vote on target posts. Users have the right to vote as and when they choose. Users that use the features of the site fully probably would vote anyway.

The edge cases like the one you have posted are probably in the minority, and with cases like that, you could comment on the accepted answer, linking to the answer you believe is better with your reasoning. Anyone that reads your comment would potentially pay attention to what you've written and attention would be drawn to the post over time.

  • @Jean-FrançoisFabre have posted an update to cover that aspect of your question. – Tanner Jul 18 '17 at 9:28
  • problem is that most people happily upvote blatant duplicate "new" answers but not the exact (better) old ones because they followed a link. That's just a psychological effect. – Jean-François Fabre Jul 18 '17 at 12:38
-2

I personally find the message

This question already has an answer here:...

too blunt, I think it's implying that I should have known this before asking, whereas I don't think this is necessarily the case. Also I don't think the fact that the other question "already has an answer" is relevant to the question of whether a question is a duplicate or not.

For a hypothetical example, say I ask "how do I get the most frequent user from my transactions" and my question gets closed as a duplicate of "How to find the most frequent value from a column in SQL". Since I'm new to SQL, I didn't know about the concepts of columns, tables, and values. The people who linked the other question, actually did answer my question and helped me learn something, and might help someone else in the future who arrives at this question through a search.

Maybe a gentler explanation could be something like

This question is a specific case of the more general question ...

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/352439/should-we-add-more-explanation-when-closing-as-duplicate
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-43
132725
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:T524535GDYMAR6EUSOZX47NNHTB4C25X
<urn:uuid:360846c9-744e-41c2-b544-521bc573b8ff>
2019-10-15T08:43:14Z
151.101.129.69
text/html
sha1:OKI3HFMOMXBQTPQ3SLGLMUFTBKGX5EDR
<urn:uuid:02741e33-0e03-446d-b752-9e7229758aa2>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/352439/should-we-add-more-explanation-when-closing-as-duplicate
response
<urn:uuid:598a6a26-871c-45fe-a927-999b6231977b>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-43
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-214.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/