Drawing on my knowledge of rapid-growth startups, and so on, my favourite phrase is "Try it, if it doesn't work, we'll try something else". Seems like a good fit for this scenario.


This wasn't already enabled? Why the hell not? Turn it on now!


Seems sensible - We may want to wordsmith the language a little more (A much-shortened version of How can I ask better questions on Server Fault?) but I'm in favor of enabling this now and refining the language later (we all know nobody reads the manual anyway :-)


Since the idea seems to have been well-received, I've turned this feature on. Feel free to log out and verify that it works... So how will we know if this has had any positive effects? Here's some baseline data on questions from new users: week Questions Bad Good PctNewUserQuestionsBad ------------- --------- --- ---- ---------------------- 2013-...


There's nothing new in any of those three answers, and so I've cleaned them up. It appears that one individual decided to post his answer to the question, which brought it back to the front page. Most people who have been around a while can recognize an old question immediately, but the clues aren't always obvious to new users, which is the most likely ...


Voting is anonymous and should stay that way. Requiring a comment would prevent this, so this an extremely undesirable feature in my view.


"Me too" answers are flag-worthy, as are old questions that are now off topic. I've gone ahead and closed and locked the question for that reason


I never see anyone complaining when they receive an up-vote without an explicit explanation... As Iain is fond of saying: "No one who needs to, reads anything least of all documentation." Many first time posters skip actually reading the the site introduction and the how to ask pages and that is unlikely to change. In that light a mandatory/automatic ...


Not particularly. I think I pick the same close reasons regardless. Mostly I find it patronising: "remember to be nice to the other children!".


I think it is a good idea to implement it but I'm just throwing this out there as a possible suggestion. Knowing that folks skim and not really read something that long, let alone click the links embedded on that page, I think that this part: We’d love to help you, but the reality is that not every question gets answered. To improve your chances, here ...


The point value of a downvote is negligible compared to the rep increases you'll get through normal use of the site. There's been commentary throughout the life of the Exchange on how to get rid of downvotes, but they're an important part of how the site works, as a method of easy communication. Also, the point system exists to incentivize usage that aligns ...


You have all the tools you need to deal with this on a case by case basis yourself. If an answer is useless then simply downvote it. You could also consider protecting the question to stop it from being used in a similar manner in the future. Beyond that, there is likely little that can be done.

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible